| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2004 02:58:07 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by soup:
moving elements around the photo is not permitted actually.
Originally posted by bestagents:
and then move elements in that one image (via cloning , which is permitted) and create a whole new image...from one 'legally'.
|
|
Although removing is...which is still moving.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 03:03:11 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Although removing is...which is still moving. |
In the case of minor, distracting elements like telephone wires, seams and blemishes, YES. For critical parts of the main subject, especially where the edits actually create the interest, NO. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 03:03:47 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
Art is in the eye of the beholder. The Vision of the artist is what matters most, not how it is achieved.
While one's ability to use PS may exceed yours (or mine) does not mean they should not be allowed to use it. You may have a better 'eye', or more time, a better camera, lens, etc. To limit your tools is to limit your vision.
It is pre-emptive Art sensorship. |
The above statements are nice but untrue. On a photography website, the medium matters greatly.
To limit the digital art submitted to what has been defined (arbitrarily or not) as 'photography' is not "pre-emptive art sensorship".
Argue the merits of where to draw that line all you want, but removing the line altogether isn't the solution... |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 03:06:33 PM · #29 |
At first I thought it would be DQed for excessive movement of pixels and then felt that it met with the theme of "Humor" and it may sneek past the DQ button for that reason. Obviously I was wrong.
IMHO it was a borderline case but as it was "Humor" I felt it should remain.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 03:22:26 PM · #30 |
| Sadness- I really liked that photo, I thought it'd win! |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 03:26:35 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by lizzyc3:
Sadness- I really liked that photo, I thought it'd win! |
No disrespect, but it looked like hot out of KPT's Goo. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 04:10:27 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
Gordon - your reference to Muench - is that one photo or compbining 2 shots? 2 shots wouuld not be legal |
In the case I described, one shot - with say a rock that covers 25% of the foreground, being enlarged to cover 33% of the foreground - single exposure.
But your coment about multiple exposures not being allowed is another fine example of how the 'advanced' photography rules aren't really.
Another example (not of this foreground scaling) and something I'm still working on, with probably quite a bit still to do:
[and sorry if pbase is having a slow day]
22 layers. 5 masks. 3 exposures. Not allowed with the advanced rules. Not photography ? Digital art ? Unrealistic ?
Other than not having tears running down my face from the blowing sand in my eyes, this is pretty close to what I saw lying there. It is probably one of the more advanced editing attempts I've made on a photograph in Photoshop. It is certainly proving to be challenging and educational for me.
Not trying to start some new rule change thread, just posting some current stuff I'm working on that seems to strike a chord with this discussion. If and when I get the time to finish this image properly, I think I'll post a reduced size version of the PSD file, with the layers, sets and masks and a discussion of the approach.
Message edited by author 2004-11-30 16:18:11.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 04:26:15 PM · #33 |
ehhhh... wait a second!!!
isn't this an advanced editing challenge? Ok, removing major parts is not legal but background? I mean.... c'mon!! this has been done before so many times!! All kinda gradient bg's, all kinda weird coloring... All those are illegal? So how come pictures who used that won the ribbons???
maybe I'm missing something but I DIDN'T see anything written about this before, while I DID see pictures using this.
Weird...
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 04:31:32 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Jinjit:
I DID see pictures using this. |
Got any examples? Every background I've seen was shot that way, except maybe for some dodging or burning. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 04:41:07 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Gurilla:
At first I thought it would be DQed for excessive movement of pixels and then felt that it met with the theme of "Humor" and it may sneek past the DQ button for that reason. Obviously I was wrong.
IMHO it was a borderline case but as it was "Humor" I felt it should remain. |
Me too! I thought it encompassed the challenge of Humour! |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 04:44:15 PM · #36 |
Jinjit is correct, there have been shots with BG removed that have been validated. The key is, was the BG a major component in the impact of the image? If it was not, then there is a chance it was not DQ'd. Also, with reference to GeneralE's post, the line has moved somewhat as we have tried to refine the idea of what constitutes moving or creating a major element.
In this case, certainly it cannot be argued that major elements were reshaped and significantly resized. There was pretty much unanimous agreement that this went over the editing line.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 04:44:35 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Jinjit:
I DID see pictures using this. |
Got any examples? Every background I've seen was shot that way, except maybe for some dodging or burning. |
It didnt ribbon, it came 4th, but it was verified as legal by the SC and it has the background replaced. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 04:48:18 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by moodville:
It didnt ribbon, it came 4th, but it was verified as legal by the SC and it has the background replaced. |
The background in this image was not replaced; but it was hueshifted.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 04:52:59 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by moodville:
It didnt ribbon, it came 4th, but it was verified as legal by the SC and it has the background replaced. |
The background in this image was not replaced; but it was hueshifted.
-Terry |
I recall him saying in chat that it was replaced when we asked him because we thought it looked weird. Maybe he just meant hueshifted then. I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 04:54:52 PM · #40 |
Here is an example of a ribbon winner with a gradient fill:
Not only that it's a GREAT photo, the background is a huge part of it!!!
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 04:57:53 PM · #41 |
Hee's another ribbon winner with photoshop effect of the background: 
Wonderful image, great importance of the background...
hmmmm.... Well... no, this is not.
Sorry... :-/
Message edited by author 2004-11-30 17:00:15.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 04:58:00 PM · #42 |
Nope, both backgrounds were captured as-is by the camera. The gradient fill was created in PS and displayed on a monitor behind the subject when the picture was taken. The photo itself was not altered. That's no different than placing fabric or paper behind your subject.
Message edited by author 2004-11-30 16:59:52. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 05:00:41 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Jinjit:
Here is an example of a ribbon winner with a gradient fill:
Not only that it's a GREAT photo, the background is a huge part of it!!! |
The background is his computer monitor with the gradiant fill on the screen. Its used to backlight the glass, it isnt done in photoshop after the shot was taken.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 05:02:13 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Jinjit:
Here is an example of a ribbon winner with a gradient fill:
Not only that it's a GREAT photo, the background is a huge part of it!!! |
In this entry, the gradient fill was displayed on a computer monitor behind the martini glas. It was part of the original image.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 05:03:10 PM · #45 |
Yeah I just understood that... Sorry... bad examples...
Great photographs anyway!!
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 05:05:52 PM · #46 |
My BG was a hue shift. Via replace color.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 05:11:27 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Jinjit is correct, there have been shots with BG removed that have been validated. The key is, was the BG a major component in the impact of the image? If it was not, then there is a chance it was not DQ'd. Also, with reference to GeneralE's post, the line has moved somewhat as we have tried to refine the idea of what constitutes moving or creating a major element.
In this case, certainly it cannot be argued that major elements were reshaped and significantly resized. There was pretty much unanimous agreement that this went over the editing line. |
I know this is asking a lot, but with reference to the above - is it not possible somehow to have rules set in stone, so that we as a group know what we can and can't do.
With this photo there were trees all along the horizon, and I only wanted the middle one so I removed the others. Yet it was verified and checked as OK.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 05:19:35 PM · #48 |
Not to argue the legality or not, of using photoshopped gradients, displayed on a screen and then shot in front of - I realise they are legal in the current letter of the rules.
However - other than clever loopholes in the rules, what is the difference between shooting the martini glass infront of a monitor showing a gradient, and shooting the martini glass infront of a green screen, selecting it in photoshop and replacing the selection with a gradient ?
Again - not questioning the legality, just once more (yes, I know, it gets boring) pointing out that tools used and photographers intent are quite independant things.
If you want a gradient filled background, or coloured smoke, how you actually achieve it is honestly mostly irrelevant - clever tricks or ingenious rule loopholes aside.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 05:20:11 PM · #49 |
Jon - I'm joining you now with my first DQ'd image :-)
Got DQ'd for the exact same reason you did, although according to what I understand now, I do totaly deserve it, while I'm really not sure you do.
I agree though that this was not clear enough in the edvanced editing rules. I think it should!
Message edited by author 2004-11-30 17:23:57.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 05:32:06 PM · #50 |
|
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: 09/14/2025 12:15:49 AM EDT.
