DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Another "Would this be legal" question
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 21 of 21, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/17/2006 02:40:53 PM · #1
This was my entry in the Holy Places challenge



This is another version using curves and hue/sat to change the sky, and adding a light effect. Would the light effect be legal for an advanced challenge?


05/17/2006 02:42:23 PM · #2
Looks fine to me. Seems to be in the vein of a classic "Heida" shot...

R.

Edit to add: for ADVANCED EDITING anyway; this won't fly in basic, which the challenge was...

Message edited by author 2006-05-17 14:43:56.
 05/17/2006 02:44:13 PM · #3
Yes, that is legal for an advanced challenge :)

June
 05/17/2006 02:47:18 PM · #4
I think it would be borderline, even though it is in Heida's style. The finished version makes it look as if there's a light in only one place, dark sky elsewhere - that's quite different from the original where there's cloudy sky for the whole sky portion.

Pictures have been disqualified for adding light rays, for example this one, where the original sky was pretty much a solid blue:



and this comes close to something like that.

But I think it's borderline.

05/17/2006 02:49:25 PM · #5
Light effects are really just an advanced burn/dodge technique. It seems totally fine to me.
05/17/2006 02:51:32 PM · #6
This shot would definitely be pushing the border in my opinion. You're creating a "spotlight" effect where none existed before. Of course there are varying SC opinions on this type of shot, but you'd probably have a mixed vote on it.
 05/17/2006 02:52:16 PM · #7
Right - if it adds a major element, like a ray of light that wasn't in the original, that would be a no. But if you're just doing something like adding a spotlight to highlight/deemphasize, then ok. Just be warned, I'm pretty sure that treatment is why my DPC Cinema entry took such a beating. Legal, but legal doesn't make it well-received.

Originally posted by ursula:
I think it would be borderline, even though it is in Heida's style. The finished version makes it look as if there's a light in only one place, dark sky elsewhere - that's quite different from the original where there's cloudy sky for the whole sky portion.

Pictures have been disqualified for adding light rays, for example this one, where the original sky was pretty much a solid blue:



and this comes close to something like that.

But I think it's borderline.

05/17/2006 02:56:56 PM · #8
Alan is right, there would be differing opinions on this at SC.

It is borderline because even though the light is there in the original, the dark that surrounds that light is not. It's sort of the reverse of Rikki's shot. But it is this darkening of the surrounding area that creates this light spot, and the original doesn't have a light spot.

Hope that helps.

Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Right - if it adds a major element, like a ray of light that wasn't in the original, that would be a no. But if you're just doing something like adding a spotlight to highlight/deemphasize, then ok. Just be warned, I'm pretty sure that treatment is why my DPC Cinema entry took such a beating. Legal, but legal doesn't make it well-received.

Originally posted by ursula:
I think it would be borderline, even though it is in Heida's style. The finished version makes it look as if there's a light in only one place, dark sky elsewhere - that's quite different from the original where there's cloudy sky for the whole sky portion.

Pictures have been disqualified for adding light rays, for example this one, where the original sky was pretty much a solid blue:



and this comes close to something like that.

But I think it's borderline.
05/17/2006 03:01:32 PM · #9
I would probably be too afraid of a DQ to enter something like that anyway. So basically the light effect filter is legal in advanced if it is used to lighten an existing light area? And is the problem with the example the creating of light in the darkness no matter how it is done?
 05/17/2006 03:05:06 PM · #10
Would it be legal to use dodge and burn to try to get a similar effect?
 05/17/2006 03:05:14 PM · #11
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I would probably be too afraid of a DQ to enter something like that anyway. So basically the light effect filter is legal in advanced if it is used to lighten an existing light area? And is the problem with the example the creating of light in the darkness no matter how it is done?


Essentially, yes. If you've created light where there was none before, not only are you playing God, but you're creating major elements which is a no-no!
 05/17/2006 03:17:53 PM · #12
While we're at it with legal questions:

Is it legal in advanced editing to clone out reflections/catch lights in eyes?

Also: is it legal in advanced editing to clone out skin imperfections/birth marks etc? (Not that I have any) ;)

I realize the rules states that minor distracting elements may be removed but a catch light in for example a close-up of an eye would in my opnion be a majoe element.
 05/17/2006 03:24:08 PM · #13
In most cases, you'd be fine with both of those things. Catch lights are generally pretty minor things, as are blemishes on skin. It's when people go overboard and create/remove really noticeable elements that it becomes a problem.

Originally posted by Are_62:
While we're at it with legal questions:

Is it legal in advanced editing to clone out reflections/catch lights in eyes?

Also: is it legal in advanced editing to clone out skin imperfections/birth marks etc? (Not that I have any) ;)

I realize the rules states that minor distracting elements may be removed but a catch light in for example a close-up of an eye would in my opnion be a majoe element.
05/17/2006 03:24:49 PM · #14
It doesn't matter how you go about achieving it, if you're creating a new element (or removing an element) in the process, it's not likely to be legal.

Originally posted by dudephil:
Would it be legal to use dodge and burn to try to get a similar effect?
05/17/2006 03:33:03 PM · #15
For what it's worth, this one is completely legal in basic, done with curves and levels only, no spot editing:



Robt.
 05/17/2006 04:24:23 PM · #16
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I would probably be too afraid of a DQ to enter something like that anyway.


I feel the same way. I didn't use the spotlight in my DPC cinema because I was afraid of a DQ but the picture looked so muc better with it.
 05/17/2006 04:35:55 PM · #17
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I would probably be too afraid of a DQ to enter something like that anyway.


I feel the same way. I didn't use the spotlight in my DPC cinema because I was afraid of a DQ but the picture looked so muc better with it.


I think the thing to keep in mind though is that this is a photography site, and in cases such as this one, even if the final version looks so much better than the original, it is something that wasn't photographed but created in digital art.

It's a fine line, but one way to think about it is to describe, in words, the original and the final version. In this case the original is a steeple on a cloudy, stormy sky. The final version is a steeple with a spot light highlighting it. There was no spot light in the original, the spot light was created, not photographed.

I'm not saying it's wrong or bad to create these beautiful images, but for here, as digital photography is defined here, it is not accepted in challenges.

You could, for example, dodge and burn the clouds (in advanced) until they look much stormier than they look now, and that would be OK. Or, you could adjust levels and curves (like Bear did) and have a stormier sky for basic. What you can't do is make something where there was nothing before.

Maybe it would help to think that you can emphasize what's there already, but not make something new.

05/17/2006 04:51:36 PM · #18
Originally posted by ursula:
It's a fine line, but one way to think about it is to describe, in words, the original and the final version. In this case the original is a steeple on a cloudy, stormy sky. The final version is a steeple with a spot light highlighting it. There was no spot light in the original, the spot light was created, not photographed.

thanks,

this is actually why i left my spotlight out. as funny as it sounds considering the previous locked thread I was scared I was breaking the rules.
 05/17/2006 04:53:31 PM · #19
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by ursula:
It's a fine line, but one way to think about it is to describe, in words, the original and the final version. In this case the original is a steeple on a cloudy, stormy sky. The final version is a steeple with a spot light highlighting it. There was no spot light in the original, the spot light was created, not photographed.

thanks,

this is actually why i left my spotlight out. as funny as it sounds considering the previous locked thread I was scared I was breaking the rules.


Your final version is quite beautiful though. I like it.
 05/17/2006 04:55:07 PM · #20
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by ursula:
It's a fine line, but one way to think about it is to describe, in words, the original and the final version. In this case the original is a steeple on a cloudy, stormy sky. The final version is a steeple with a spot light highlighting it. There was no spot light in the original, the spot light was created, not photographed.

thanks,

this is actually why i left my spotlight out. as funny as it sounds considering the previous locked thread I was scared I was breaking the rules.


For DPC Cinema I worked hard with a flashlight and many takes to create a diagonal "line" of light in my photo with near-blackness at the corners... not that the voters cared for it much.
 05/17/2006 05:19:35 PM · #21
Originally posted by posthumous:


For DPC Cinema I worked hard with a flashlight and many takes to create a diagonal "line" of light in my photo with near-blackness at the corners... not that the voters cared for it much.


I would have done something similar but the wife was already about to divorce me for potentially making her deaf when I got fake blood in her ear:)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/07/2025 04:58:48 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 09/07/2025 04:58:48 PM EDT.