| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2007 09:19:01 PM · #26 |
My score rose to an impressive 163rd! :D
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 09:28:25 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by quiet_observation:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by Brad:
I could have 30 too - I would just have to cut all mine up into pieces.
:P
And following in the footsteps of one of the sweetest and most lady-like women around...
Originally posted by ursula:
Here's a picture in your honour, one that I think is a pretty good capture of how it must feel like to have 30 ribbons ....
 |
I hereby second the motion
Quack! |
Moo! |
Oops! |
Grunt!
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 09:34:42 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
The former third place shot has been DQ'd for adding new features... congrats to our new #3! |
What were the new features added? |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 09:40:00 PM · #29 |
| Hey Ursula, look Luminous Landscape has the same photo as you Pic |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 09:49:27 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by maggieddd:
Hey Ursula, look Luminous Landscape has the same photo as you Pic |
Hey! They stole my pict and put more clouds in it (I think to confuse us). Those guys anyway. I'm thoroughly miffed. :) |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 10:33:41 PM · #31 |
| Scalvert i can't believe you! |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 01:26:54 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
The former third place shot has been DQ'd for adding new features... congrats to our new #3! |
What were the new features added? |
No one? I see the background looks like it was altered but I thought that was legal in advanced? |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 07:23:57 AM · #33 |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 09:28:31 AM · #34 |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 09:32:01 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
The former third place shot has been DQ'd for adding new features... congrats to our new #3! |
What were the new features added? |
No one? I see the background looks like it was altered but I thought that was legal in advanced? |
Not sure, but I'm guessing drop shadows were added in PP. Just a guess though.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:48:40 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
The former third place shot has been DQ'd for adding new features... congrats to our new #3! |
What were the new features added? |
No one? I see the background looks like it was altered but I thought that was legal in advanced? |
Not sure, but I'm guessing drop shadows were added in PP. Just a guess though. |
I see. I think these DQs should be more specific so that peole will know what not to do. Half the time I don't understand what happened and then am super paranoid about my own entries. :/ |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:50:13 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'm guessing drop shadows were added in PP. |
The background was added. The original background was completely blank. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:57:12 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'm guessing drop shadows were added in PP. |
The background was added. The original background was completely blank. |
So he had a white BG and added the blue vignetting? Or a blue BG and desaturated the central oval?
Since we already know that ANY color shift is ALWAYS legal (as far as the color shifting goes), what does this decision forebode as tot he legality of ANY sort of added vignetting or gradients on skies, BGs, foregrounds, whatever? After all, that's a time-honored photographic technique.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:59:37 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'm guessing drop shadows were added in PP. |
The background was added. The original background was completely blank. |
Yeah, I'm confused, too. What's illegal about that? It doesn't seem to break the major element rule, and it doesn't change one's description of the photo. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:00:21 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The background was added. The original background was completely blank. |
Uh-oh. I thought background colour alterations were legal in Advanced editing.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:02:10 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by kashi:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The background was added. The original background was completely blank. |
Uh-oh. I thought background colour alterations were legal in Advanced editing. |
Here's a quote from Advanced editing May Nots:
You May not use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:04:13 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'm guessing drop shadows were added in PP. |
The background was added. The original background was completely blank. |
So he had a white BG and added the blue vignetting? Or a blue BG and desaturated the central oval?
Since we already know that ANY color shift is ALWAYS legal (as far as the color shifting goes), what does this decision forebode as tot he legality of ANY sort of added vignetting or gradients on skies, BGs, foregrounds, whatever? After all, that's a time-honored photographic technique.
R. |
I'm also puzzled but I think their reasoning was the color shifting created a new "shape" that wasn't there before and it's prominent enough where it becomes a significant element in the image that wasn't there originally. That's my guess anyway.
ETA: I bet they would have let it go had it been done for stylistic reasons as opposed to compositional reasons.
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 15:06:59. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:07:20 PM · #43 |
A shame, I liked this image, one has to admit it wouldn't have had the impact without the white background, I suppose it could be construed as adding a major element?
Still a great image..bad luck.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:12:48 PM · #44 |
The background is a prominent feature that wasn't part of the original capture. Color shifting is OK, and vignettes have been allowed in Advanced, but a vignette would darken the existing image around the outside edge. The tools in this image were unaffacted by the shifts and all of the added part is behind them, so I would consider this a created background, not a vignette. Note how many comments mentioned the background.
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 15:13:58. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:22:17 PM · #45 |
So the photo only got dqed because the vignette was blue? But if it had been done this way...
It would have been ok?? That doesn't make sense to me at all.
This is really frustrated. I had asked on here for the sake of my own entry if color changes and vignettes were legal and I got a yes... almost a "DUUHHH" kind of yes from a few people and here it is not being legal... how are we supposed to know these things?
Thread Here
I know none of the people answering were site council but I figured they'd intervene if I was getting the wrong answers.
Like for this photo that I used in the thread...
It WOULD be dqed because you could say... Girl, GREEN backdground? Because the original background was white? Even though color adjustments are completely legal?
Here's an additional question to that... changing skin tone. If I made my skin purple... wouldn't that change a general viewers description? Yet selective desaturation is fine?
AHHH. Confusion. Will someone please clear this up? I know this has been said a million times but that rule is just way too vague! |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:26:49 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The background is a prominent feature that wasn't part of the original capture. Color shifting is OK, and vignettes have been allowed in Advanced, but a vignette would darken the existing image around the outside edge. The tools in this image were unaffacted by the shifts and all of the added part is behind them, so I would consider this a created background, not a vignette. Note how many comments mentioned the background. |
Okay - so adding a darkening vignette is okay, right ? As long as it affects the entire image ?
But masking the subject off and adding a background is not ?
But colour-shifting is ? What if the subject is masked off, can we still colour shift the background ?
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:29:17 PM · #47 |
It has nothing to do with color shifts. Larus' entry already had some vignetting which he enhanced. If the background was flat white and you added obvious shapes behind your subjects, then you would be creating a background IMO rather than vignetting the existing image. I'm guessing if De Sousa had changed the background to light blue and added a vignette (a real one that affects the tools), then it probably would have been fine.
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 15:33:55. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:38:49 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It has nothing to do with color shifts. Larus' entry already had some vignetting which he enhanced. If the background was flat white and you added obvious shapes behind your subjects, then you would be creating a background IMO rather than vignetting the existing image. I'm guessing if De Sousa had changed the background to light blue and added a vignette (a real one that affects the tools), then it probably would have been fine. |
I'm still confused. How is one to know that a vignette is ok but not if it doesn't go over the subject? So however the vignette was made... (burning, adding color, or otherwise) you can't avoid the portions where the subject is?
Seems real dodgy to me. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:44:24 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
How is one to know that a vignette is ok but not if it doesn't go over the subject? |
A vignette in photographic terms is when the image is darker around the edge of the frame, either from lighting or a lens effect. Drawing on the background without affecting any of the actual capture isn't a vignette IMO. Again, read the comments on the image. Lots of people noted the background, but not one persion mentioned a vignette. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:49:35 PM · #50 |
| I read the comments like you said. Lots of people said they liked the background. That the red went well against the blue. I don't see how this causes an issue? How is this different than Idnic filling in the background of her Evolution shot? As it did not affect the subjects and only the background, was that not a created background also? Certainly far more than changing a color? |
|
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: 08/14/2025 05:41:07 AM EDT.
