| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/23/2012 09:48:45 PM · #1 |
if i have an image and i darken it a bit to remove to details to create pure silhouette, do you think I'll get dq'd? the image is backlit but there is still some detail in the foreground object and i want to burn it out.
im thinking i will...
|
|
|
|
07/23/2012 09:57:19 PM · #2 |
it is Advanced Editing, so you can tweak the heck out of it with selective contrast/brightness and spot edit as needed... at least that is how i went about it
anyone else agree/disagree? |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:03:01 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by mefnj:
it is Advanced Editing, so you can tweak the heck out of it with selective contrast/brightness and spot edit as needed... at least that is how i went about it
anyone else agree/disagree? |
can you? I know other people that have been DQd for blacking out a background simply by using curves... and I'm not quite sure how that's different.
I think if it's a backlit, mostly black subject already, I think it's ok. But if there's a lot of detail, I think that changes the definition of how the viewer sees the image and is DQable.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:25:56 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by mefnj:
it is Advanced Editing, so you can tweak the heck out of it with selective contrast/brightness and spot edit as needed... at least that is how i went about it
anyone else agree/disagree? |
can you? I know other people that have been DQd for blacking out a background simply by using curves... and I'm not quite sure how that's different.
I think if it's a backlit, mostly black subject already, I think it's ok. But if there's a lot of detail, I think that changes the definition of how the viewer sees the image and is DQable. |
the rules read you MAY NOT
"use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer̢۪s 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"
so, are saying the "element" being removed is "detail"? if I saw a photo of a bear in silhouette i would still describe it as a bear. and with levels or brightness/contrast adjustments you are essentially changing the "color" of the object from something to black.
maybe "removing" the background with levels took the image too much out of context, so it is more prone to being DQed. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:33:13 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by mefnj:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by mefnj:
it is Advanced Editing, so you can tweak the heck out of it with selective contrast/brightness and spot edit as needed... at least that is how i went about it
anyone else agree/disagree? |
can you? I know other people that have been DQd for blacking out a background simply by using curves... and I'm not quite sure how that's different.
I think if it's a backlit, mostly black subject already, I think it's ok. But if there's a lot of detail, I think that changes the definition of how the viewer sees the image and is DQable. |
the rules read you MAY NOT
"use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer̢۪s 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"
so, are saying the "element" being removed is "detail"? if I saw a photo of a bear in silhouette i would still describe it as a bear. and with levels or brightness/contrast adjustments you are essentially changing the "color" of the object from something to black.
maybe "removing" the background with levels took the image too much out of context, so it is more prone to being DQed. |
I'll be curious about an answer to this. You can read my earlier response as a "I think..... ?? maybe??? not sure?" type of response. Because it's just a guess.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:39:56 PM · #6 |
well, Mike, i feel somewhat the same as Wendy ... you should take my response as a best guess, too (i may have stated it too definitive). the SC decides case by case, so what may fly one time may not the next.
Message edited by author 2012-07-23 22:40:13. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:42:58 PM · #7 |
...
Message edited by author 2012-07-24 15:55:25.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2012 11:10:24 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by mefnj:
if I saw a photo of a bear in silhouette i would still describe it as a bear. |
So would I. But the way to determine if it is legal, is to imagine how 10 people would describe the photo, if asked to do so.
If they ONLY see a bear, then you're good. But if they also mention the trees or the river, or the salmon jumping, or the tent he just tore to shreds or the tourists screaming or the stunning sunset etc etc etc....... then you removed details and will get DQed. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 11:15:38 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by mefnj:
if I saw a photo of a bear in silhouette i would still describe it as a bear. |
So would I. But the way to determine if it is legal, is to imagine how 10 people would describe the photo, if asked to do so.
[snip] or the tent he just tore to shreds or the tourists screaming etc etc etc....... |
why would anyone ever get rid of THAT !!! enter it as a shoehorn! ;-)
-m |
|
|
|
07/24/2012 03:15:13 AM · #10 |
Why not just create a near silhouette, while keeping basic forms in the shadow intact?
Granted, you'll face the wrath of DNMC, but maybe their monitors are horrible for darks, too ;0
Personally, I'd leave SOME detail if it was there to begin with. You can't get rid of image area in advanced, regardless of how you do it (this is one of the major ways that basic editing is more powerful). BUT I'd keep it dark and downplayed. |
|
|
|
07/24/2012 02:48:35 PM · #11 |
| All this now has me second guessing my current entry... May have to re-edit tonight before rollover |
|
|
|
07/24/2012 02:56:08 PM · #12 |
If it has just a little visible detail, I think clipping the blacks a bit is just fine. I've done it, though I've never had one of them backed up with a validation.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2012 03:39:48 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
If it has just a little visible detail, I think clipping the blacks a bit is just fine. I've done it, though I've never had one of them backed up with a validation. |
I'm sorry but are we saying that in advanced editing one couldn't make a photo at the correct exposure and then crank it down in post so that it's almost black? One needs expert rules for such a thing? |
|
|
|
07/24/2012 03:44:54 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by mrchhas:
I'm sorry but are we saying that in advanced editing one couldn't make a photo at the correct exposure and then crank it down in post so that it's almost black? One needs expert rules for such a thing? |
One could. I wouldn't go blacking out something with normally visible details, but it it were *almost* a silhouette, then I think clipping the blacks a touch is ok. I did it on this one:
|
|
|
|
07/24/2012 04:39:38 PM · #15 |
I would think you couldn't take an otherwise normal photo and burn the hell out of a figure to remove all detail and make it black.
Is that what makes advanced different from expert? it may be a judgement call on the part of SC,
but as I understand it it is the result that matters in advanced, not as much how you got there. |
|
|
|
07/24/2012 07:26:59 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I would think you couldn't take an otherwise normal photo and burn the hell out of a figure to remove all detail and make it black.
Is that what makes advanced different from expert? it may be a judgement call on the part of SC,
but as I understand it it is the result that matters in advanced, not as much how you got there. |
so long as that result isn't too far off the original.
one could argue that the image was exposed well enough that the details were barely there to begin with, it wouldn't hurt that they would now be gone.
|
|
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 02:34:41 PM EDT.
