| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2006 08:53:29 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Originally posted by kirbic:
FWIW, a vignetted effect can of course be easily manufactured in-camera using a snoot or mask on the end of the lens, thus circumventing the limitations of equipment. |
Or just stack several UV filters on the end of your lens... (assuming you're not going telephoto) |
or hold a toilet paper roll to the lens while doing telephoto. usually works. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 09:04:57 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The question is: did we indeed create three out of one? |
It's obvious from the shot that there are three plumes of smoke that blend together at the top. The end result is also three plumes of smoke that blend together at the top. Thus, the only "change" a typical viewer might describe is the color, and that's legal. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 09:41:46 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by yanko:
I'd say that would get validated since throughtout this discussion they have said all color shits are legal... |
Hahahaha, he said "color shits!" |
Damn Fruity Pebbles!
I'm just pissed that I can't do a levitation shot with my 725 pound nephew cuz I'm now not allowed to clone out the loggong chains that hold him.
Damn skinny kids!
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 10:40:00 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Actually, I'm saying that RGB smoke is legal. If someone were asked to describe the shot, they might say something like "it's a photo of three smoldering matches, one with red smoke, one with green smoke and one with blue smoke." I don't think anyone would name the tricolored smoke as being a distinct object that was not present prior to the editing. The color would be considered an attribute of a preexisting object, the smoke, in other words. |
This is why this always has seemed nuts to me. You just described it as three separate clouds of smoke. But it wasn't. It was one white cloud of smoke. It was edited to make 3. You described it in two entirely different ways but don't claim there is any different or new distinct objects created.
So again, if I create a rainbow on some clouds - is that valid ? After all, its just a big bank of coloured clouds - right ?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 10:50:09 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Actually, I'm saying that RGB smoke is legal. If someone were asked to describe the shot, they might say something like "it's a photo of three smoldering matches, one with red smoke, one with green smoke and one with blue smoke." I don't think anyone would name the tricolored smoke as being a distinct object that was not present prior to the editing. The color would be considered an attribute of a preexisting object, the smoke, in other words. |
This is why this always has seemed nuts to me. You just described it as three separate clouds of smoke. But it wasn't. It was one white cloud of smoke. It was edited to make 3. You described it in two entirely different ways but don't claim there is any different or new distinct objects created.
So again, if I create a rainbow on some clouds - is that valid ? After all, its just a big bank of coloured clouds - right ? |
We're going in circles. Your language alone should tip you off as to the response. You named the object you hypothetically created, "rainbow."
Although I agree that while the separation of the smoke is not complete in RGB Smoke, it clearly emanates from three separate sources. The coloring presents the illusion that the smoke from each source, arguably separate objects, is a different color.
I'd bet that out of a sampling of, say, a dozen random members not more than a couple would say that a recognizable object has been created. The same group would surely have a much different opinion of the hypothetical "rainbow" example.
Bottom line, RGB smoke generates a lot of controversy because it did and does push the envelope. I'm just trying to convey why we are placing it just inside the "envelope of legality." |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 10:54:14 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
... we are placing it just inside the "envelope of legality." |
But it came Postage Due ... |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 10:56:13 PM · #132 |
For fun, I quickly dodged some clouds. Didn't even change their colour...
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 10:58:10 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The coloring presents the illusion that the smoke from each source, arguably separate objects, is a different color. |
That, and the title calls them out as individual elements and co-incidentally the actual point of the shot - all added in post processing.
Just seems like it would have been an easier line to draw without fudging on the colour change to create distinct object issue.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:05:46 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
...Just seems like it would have been an easier line to draw without fudging on the colour change to create distinct object issue. |
Absolutely true. Our goal, of course, was to allow maximum creative freedom while disallowing wholesale creation of objects. Had we made color shifts of existing objects illegal, it would have represented a major new restriction. We've always allowed selective colro shifts, and we did not see a compelling reason not to allow them. We therefore had to find a reasonable compromise.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:07:12 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
For fun, I quickly dodged some clouds. Didn't even change their colour...
|
Holy object-creation, Batman! ;-) |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:07:41 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Gordon:
For fun, I quickly dodged some clouds. Didn't even change their colour...
|
Holy object-creation, Batman! ;-) |
It's just some clouds....
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:09:37 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It's just some clouds.... |
Quit trying to cloud the issue! |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:10:24 PM · #138 |
| Gawd, i could *not* resist that opening... |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:10:32 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It's just some clouds.... |
Most English-speaking people above the age of 4 would describe a new object there (as opposed to RGB smoke, where three plumes of smoke blended at the top are still three plumes of smoke blended at the top).
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 23:11:59. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:13:12 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Most English-speaking people above the age of 4 would describe a new object there (as opposed to RGB smoke, where three plumes of smoke blended at the top are still three plumes of smoke blended at the top). |
So then, you would feel differently if it was say one match and still the 3 colours of smoke ?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:25:11 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Most English-speaking people above the age of 4 would describe a new object there (as opposed to RGB smoke, where three plumes of smoke blended at the top are still three plumes of smoke blended at the top). |
So then, you would feel differently if it was say one match and still the 3 colours of smoke ? |
How many threads have we beat this to death in? And where oh where is dr. nick and his popcorn when you really need him??
Returning to a (somewhat) serious tone, and with reference to my post above, the 3-match version is, admittedly, close to the line. So we can infer that a hypothetical 1-match version might be closer. Possibly over. Of course, raising this as an example is a bit of a red herring, since such a version does not exist, and so it's not possible to comment on whether it would cross the line or not.
Bottom line, the rule is enforcable and, we believe, understandable. I believe that I personally have argued this as far as it is reasonable to do so, and herewith will refrain from further comment. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:27:32 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bottom line, the rule is enforcable and, we believe, understandable. I believe that I personally have argued this as far as it is reasonable to do so, and herewith will refrain from further comment. |
I was just trying to get some clarity as it seems about as clear as before. I'll leave it be.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:31:33 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bottom line, the rule is enforcable and, we believe, understandable. I believe that I personally have argued this as far as it is reasonable to do so, and herewith will refrain from further comment. |
I was just trying to get some clarity as it seems about as clear as before. I'll leave it be. |
'night Gordon. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:47:00 PM · #144 |
| Really, it would have been a lot easier if you said that RGB smoke does not fit the new set of rules. It pushes the limits and helps similar techniques validate. (I recall a friend had a bulb with the filament "turned on" by dodging during PP, and used the RGB precedent). Using the typical viewer's description argument: "before: photo of a bulb resting on a table. After: photo of a bulb on table, magically switched on". |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 12:17:54 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by Nitin:
Really, it would have been a lot easier if you said that RGB smoke does not fit the new set of rules. |
Based on what? Color shifts are legal, and if you discount the color shifts, what changed? If I used color shifts to draw in a rainbow, then you could say a rainbow was added (a distinct, describable feature). What was added here? The big complaint on RGB Smoke was that the colorization divided the smoke into three parts, but it seems clear that there WERE three sources of smoke, and they do still blend together. If the smoke had been dodged and burned to make the same three parts a bit more distinguishable in grayscale, I doubt anybody would have raised an eyebrow. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 01:19:12 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nitin:
Really, it would have been a lot easier if you said that RGB smoke does not fit the new set of rules. |
Based on what? Color shifts are legal, and if you discount the color shifts, what changed? ... |
I thought color shifts where legal only when the entire object is color shifted, but not if some arbitrary portion of the object was shifted. This has always puzzled me about 'RGB Smoke', but I tossed it off as having been validated before the above was definite.
It is clearly an arbitrary colorization. Severaly of the plumes (individual objects) change color from one end to the other -- of particular example is the single plume arcing above the center match that changes color arbitrarily from Red to Green to Blue.
So has my impression been wrong? Is it legal to color shift only a portion of an object?
David
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 01:27:00 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by David.C:
So has my impression been wrong? Is it legal to color shift only a portion of an object? |
Yes, in Advanced you can use a selection, in Basic by using Selective Color (as in the partial desaturation tutorial). |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 01:42:00 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nitin:
Really, it would have been a lot easier if you said that RGB smoke does not fit the new set of rules. |
Based on what? Color shifts are legal, and if you discount the color shifts, what changed? |
I dont think arguing over semantics would get us anywhere. I thought the new rules were more about the result than the process. I clearly see RGB smoke as completely different from white smoke. I guess you dont. Lets agree to disagree then.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:40:03 AM · #149 |
This line should be moved from "you may" to "Penalties", which would be better named "Disqualification":
"request removal of your own entry during the voting period IF none of your last 25 entries were disqualified or removed, and no rules were violated."
My reason is that this rule relates to removal of image from the competition, whereas the rest of that list relates to processing - it doesn't sit comfortably in its current spot.
[edit to add:
A slightly more radical suggestion would be to use the "you must, you may, you may not" format a little more judiciously: it is a really helpful format for providing easy access to rules generally. However, it makes it difficult to assess all the rules that apply to a specific stage of the competition entry procedure.
I view the procedure in three parts:
1. Taking the Image
2. Processing and submitting the Image
3. Post Submission Behaviour
It might be helpful to have the "must, may, must not" as subheadings beneath each stage.
By way of example, the rules on post processing are primarily included within the "you may" section. I had to hunt for the "typical viewer" exception, which is in the "you must not" section. I hunted because I knew it was there from this thread, but it would not leap out at me if I had taken my picture and was looking for the rules on post processing.
Alternatively, group the rules under each of the existing "must, may, must not" headings so that they are in order, perhaps with a subheading identifying the stage that they relate to or at least separating them with an empty line.
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 06:14:01.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 05:42:56 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Good work!
I have a couple of minor comments (so far!).
Advanced editing:
"Advanced Editing allows more freedom than Basic Editing to correct flaws and make the most of your captured image. "
The Basic and Advanced rules could easily be referred to on a single page - split out rules (where they differ under different rules) at the nd of each section. This would avoid a lot of repetition, plus the differences between basic and advanced editing would be very clear. |
We actually did considered this. |
Thanks for the response - please also note the suggested amendment to the line in Advanced editing (without which the sentence does not make sense).
|
|
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: 07/31/2025 09:10:00 AM EDT.
