| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2012 09:09:20 PM · #1 |
i'm still a little gun shy from my recent DQ/suspension, so trying to play it straight within the rules.
for advanced editing, is using gradients to apply effects OK? specifically, is it OK to use gradients to shift the colors of an image gradually within an image? i seem to recall a previous DQ when someone added rainbow/spectrum coloring to an image.
thoughts?
-mefnj |
|
|
|
01/24/2012 09:17:10 PM · #2 |
It's neither always OK nor always illegal. It depends on whether it creates new shapes within the image. Creating a colored rectangle by making a selection and changing tone or color will be illegal. Gradually fading out the application of a blur is a recognized technique, as is applying a blur (or a color shift)selectively along existing subject lines.
If you have questions about a specific edit, submit web-sized original and edited shots to the SC for an opinion before submitting.
Message edited by author 2012-01-24 21:17:47.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2012 09:23:32 PM · #3 |
Well, this was validated and it used a gradient to add the colours.
 |
|
|
|
01/24/2012 09:34:23 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Well, this was validated and it used a gradient to add the colours. |
Great example Karen... in this case you can't point to any specific shape or feature that the color shift creates, and thus it should (and apparently is) judged legal.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2012 09:57:16 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 06:50:50 AM · #6 |
| i'd like to hear if that last one is legal. i wouldn't think that it was, but i'd be joyed to hear it was. |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 07:24:23 AM · #7 |
you may not:
use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s).
dq for me the last one |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 07:26:25 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Well, this was validated and it used a gradient to add the colours. |
Great example Karen... in this case you can't point to any specific shape or feature that the color shift creates, and thus it should (and apparently is) judged legal. |
Actually I don't think it should be legal. There were no colours in the smoke before, the colours were added in photoshop, to me that's adding a feature that wasn't there before. |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 07:40:53 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Well, this was validated and it used a gradient to add the colours. |
Great example Karen... in this case you can't point to any specific shape or feature that the color shift creates, and thus it should (and apparently is) judged legal. |
Actually I don't think it should be legal. There were no colours in the smoke before, the colours were added in photoshop, to me that's adding a feature that wasn't there before. |
I don't think "color" is considered a feature. A feature would be a new border created by adding color. In this case, the photographer "colored within the lines", so this part of advanced seems to rule: "You may saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object within it." |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 08:12:06 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Actually I don't think it should be legal. There were no colours in the smoke before, the colours were added in photoshop, to me that's adding a feature that wasn't there before. |
But according to the rules, selective color shifts are even OK in Basic, as long as they are done using global adjustments. This really old shot of mine:
used hue/saturation changes on green only to shift the color of the green bell pepper to blue. Perfectly legal.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2012 08:47:04 AM · #11 |
I understand the changing colours rule, but this was not changing colours, it was adding colours where none were before.
Also, if the entire smoke was made the same colour I'd agree with that, but putting different colours in the smoke seems to go against the rules, as I've seen other pics DQ'ed for adding colours "not within the lines" so to speak. |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 09:02:59 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
you may not:
use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s).
dq for me the last one |
right but isn't adding a vignette essentially this and thats legal. is it becuase its blended and and not sharp edges that makes it legal?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2012 09:30:51 AM · #13 |
The key question is whether you created a new, identifiable shape. Creating a rainbow in the sky will get you a DQ, even if it's feathered out. Creating gradients of color on an existing object (like the smoke) is legal. It's a fine line, to be sure.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2012 09:35:20 AM · #14 |
i had this for an advanced challenge and decided not to submit it, as i thought id gone to far in advanced rule set
IMG_2270 by gilesbert, on Flickr
IMG_2270 - Version 2 by gilesbert, on Flickr |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 11:03:25 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The key question is whether you created a new, identifiable shape. Creating a rainbow in the sky will get you a DQ, even if it's feathered out. Creating gradients of color on an existing object (like the smoke) is legal. It's a fine line, to be sure. |
Take a look at this one: sure to be DQ'd, right? And yet, the smoke image, which is functionally exactly the same thing, is OK, apprently simply because the smoke is amorphous enough that the color shifts don't read quite so arbitrarily?
R.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2012 01:17:39 PM · #16 |
| I think the fact that the colour gradient changes took place over the entire image on the smoke entry plays a key roll as to why it was deemed legal. |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 01:27:09 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
I think the fact that the colour gradient changes took place over the entire image on the smoke entry plays a key roll as to why it was deemed legal. |
But it's just on the smoke...
|
|
|
|
01/25/2012 01:27:09 PM · #18 |
double post
Message edited by author 2012-01-25 13:29:23.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2012 01:35:42 PM · #19 |
It's not visible on the background because the background is black, but I assume if the background was white it would be coloured also.
Message edited by author 2012-01-25 13:35:56. |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 01:56:12 PM · #20 |
The bottom line is that for this type of thing, requiring a subjective determination, there is no way to say in advance whether any particular picture/effect will be rules-legal or not -- otherwise the rules would give you the answer without having ask here.
Rulings on issues like this are often not unanimous. You can submit a ticket with your Before/After versions and a list of editing steps (preferably at least a couple of days before the deadline) and you will usually get the informal opinion of one or more SC members, but that cannot be considered "pre-validation" for several reasons.
If you want to push the limits of the rules, understand that, like "art", opinions will vary, and every photo is subject to disqualification. Also know that this has nothing to do with "cheating" -- unless you're trying to sneak some Advanced editing into a Basic challenge ... ;-) |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 01:57:39 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by HawkinsT:
It's not visible on the background because the background is black, but I assume if the background was white it would be coloured also. |
But it's legal to desaturate a background anyway. In advanced. I ran my gradient on the whole picture, then selected the hand, inverted the selection, and desaturated everything but the hand. So, based on your statements, you think it's possible the exact same effect would be legal/illegal simply based on whether it was visible on the BG or not? Makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2012 04:10:10 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The bottom line is that for this type of thing, requiring a subjective determination, there is no way to say in advance whether any particular picture/effect will be rules-legal or not -- otherwise the rules would give you the answer without having ask here.
Rulings on issues like this are often not unanimous. You can submit a ticket with your Before/After versions and a list of editing steps (preferably at least a couple of days before the deadline) and you will usually get the informal opinion of one or more SC members, but that cannot be considered "pre-validation" for several reasons.
If you want to push the limits of the rules, understand that, like "art", opinions will vary, and every photo is subject to disqualification. Also know that this has nothing to do with "cheating" -- unless you're trying to sneak some Advanced editing into a Basic challenge ... ;-) |
I appreciate the "behind the scenes", but it does make the application of the RULES sound somewhat arbitrary. I have found that the SC is very even-handed and fair, but that is not to say that the fear of somehow inadvertently overstepping what is allowed has kept me from entering some images for fear of a DQ.
The rule that caused me to start this thread was
YOU MAY NOT
use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.
The "aside from color and crop" parenthetical would lead to a straightforward reading to mean that anything done to the color (including gradients or rainbows) will be legal, as long as it is applied to an existing element in the image and not to a newly created shape or area.
No desire to beat a dead horse! Just submit to SC in advance if there is doubt in your mind. |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 05:04:55 PM · #23 |
 Giles_uk I believe that would be illegal in the end. Mostly because you are cloning out a significant part of the picture. And then there is the "Art" rule. You are tricking the people into thinking it is a real plane versus a plane on a stick.
I may be a bit iffy on that art work rule though.
Nicely done though!!! |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 05:24:48 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Giles_uk I believe that would be illegal in the end. Mostly because you are cloning out a significant part of the picture. And then there is the "Art" rule. You are tricking the people into thinking it is a real plane versus a plane on a stick.
I may be a bit iffy on that art work rule though.
Nicely done though!!! |
yeah that was my thinking and i ran past the fountain of dpc knowledge that is the grand old bear ;) and he confirmed that i was pushing it to far
had fun on facebook with it though hehe, |
|
|
|
01/25/2012 06:12:06 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by mefnj:
The "aside from color and crop" parenthetical would lead to a straightforward reading to mean that anything done to the color (including gradients or rainbows) will be legal, as long as it is applied to an existing element in the image and not to a newly created shape or area.
No desire to beat a dead horse! Just submit to SC in advance if there is doubt in your mind. |
The subjective part is whether something new is created ... if you take a landscape where the sun burns out the highlights, and you change that to a nice yellowish-orange_to_blue gradient, that would *probably* be OK, but applying a yellow_to_blue gradient to a previously flat blue sky would seem to create a new "shape" (albeit without sharply-defined edges) where there was none before. Similarly, we don't allow adding flare, or motion blur where there was none before (you can "enhance" an existing blur).
Note that all of these examples represent my opinion only, which has quite often been a minority vote ...Before After
  Legal
  Not Legal)
 Your guess is probably as good as mine ...
And yes, this aspect of the rules is somewhat arbitrary by nature of being a subjective evaluation. Here is a set of images I created when we were discussing when the combination of two images constitutes the use of an "overlay" and when the two images comprise a "composite" image, the former legal and the latter not. There is no consensus about which image forms the boundary, and these are only the coarsest of gradations -- there are many intermediate levels of transparency between which you'd have to decide.     
|
|
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: 08/02/2025 02:59:48 PM EDT.
