| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/16/2005 10:59:11 AM · #1 |
Does the backlight source need to be evident in the image? What about a shot where it's suggestive that instead of the silhouette was created by backlighting, it was instead created through PS, perhaps with adjustments in levels, curves, etc? I'm not talking about those PS adjustments "enhancing" the silhouette, but actually creating it?
As in:
 where a silhouette like subject was created using simple application of paint, and  which is the original of the image, and although the white background reflected light, the main light source was clearly facing the subject.
Message edited by author 2005-05-16 11:12:08.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2005 11:02:37 AM · #2 |
| I thought the same thing. I took a photo...wasn't back light and uses B/W threshold on it and it made it appear to be a silhoutte. I edited my entry with some "creative" adjustments. JUst will have to see what others think. |
|
|
|
05/16/2005 11:50:46 AM · #3 |
The challenge was silhouettes so if you have a silhouette in your image then it is what the topic asked for. If you got the silhouette by 'faking' it in photoshop then really all you've done is missed out on learning how to do a silhouette with your camera.
Additionally the image could possibly be DQ'd for removing a major element. If an image can be DQ'd because a background was removed then I would think it would be the same reasoning when a face (or whatever became the silhouette) was removed also. |
|
|
|
05/16/2005 11:54:47 AM · #4 |
I'd definitely worry about a DQ on the illustrating example above. If that ain't "major element removing" I don't know what is. And completely evades the spirit of the challenge to boot, IMO.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2005 11:56:43 AM · #5 |
Just to clarify, that's NOT what I did for the shot I submitted. Looking at some of the entries, however, I wonder if this kind of processing was done.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2005 12:39:04 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by rgo:
Does the backlight source need to be evident in the image? What about a shot where it's suggestive that instead of the silhouette was created by backlighting, it was instead created through PS, perhaps with adjustments in levels, curves, etc? I'm not talking about those PS adjustments "enhancing" the silhouette, but actually creating it? |
Personally, I have no problem with a artificially generated sihlouette.
It proves two important things. One, you understand what a sihlouette is which, based on discussions prior to this challenge, a lot of people do not. Two, it demonstrates you have a minimum of ability with post processing software which is an essential skill in today's photography.
I don't buy the arguement that you are missing out on the experience of properly capturing a sihlouette in-camera. If you do not already understand that you require several stops difference in "real" lighting to create a sihlouette in-camera then you certainly are not smart enough to generate one artificially in PS.
The main purpose of this site is to learn how to use a camera to capture images. Everything about it revolves around that concept. As such you run the risk of a DQ by removing a "major element". (BTW, if you read them closely you will find that removing a "major element" is NOT specifically prohibited in the rules, only adding an element is.).
I'm not a person required to apply rules so I'd never consider recommending a DQ for an image under any circumstances. There is nothing of any intrinsic value at stake here anyway. Now... if there were "real" awards involved then I would think different. :)
I considered generating a creative sihlouette from images I took last weekend which I thought might be very interesting but ultimately rejected the idea, not because I thought it "wrong" but because I could not make one to my liking.
But then, I already know how to take a sihlouette picture.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2005 01:19:46 PM · #7 |
Ah yes - the old removal issue. ;^) So, if you "remove" the object to create the silhouette (as in the example posted that starts this thread), aren't you in essence "adding" an object? That blank space occupying the area of the original object is now a new object in the image...yes/no? And that IS a no-no in the rule book. ;^)
Ok...back to work I go now. Have fun!
Originally posted by stdavidson:
...As such you run the risk of a DQ by removing a "major element". (BTW, if you read them closely you will find that removing a "major element" is NOT specifically prohibited in the rules, only adding an element is.)... |
|
|
|
|
05/16/2005 02:10:28 PM · #8 |
People do it all the time with backgrounds as well. When you load some entries in Irfanview, enhance colors and bump up the gamma correction hugely you'll find them because there is a total lack of detail. Normally there should be some detail left when the element is just underexposed (only very noisy, lack of noise shows filling in). Why would I load stuff in Irfanview, well sometimes I just wonder: how do they do that (as a learning experience)?
I don't think blacking stuff out in PS is really in the spirit of dpc.
|
|
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: 09/05/2025 06:01:29 PM EDT.
