| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2007 03:49:51 PM · #51 |
| this was not a vignette, it was a completly diffrent background.he digitaly created an object that was not there in the capture. would be like aking a pic and deiding your subject would look better with a mustache and drawing it on, then becomes a photoshop comp and not a photography comp |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:51:51 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
How is this different than Idnic filling in the background of her Evolution shot? |
Idnic's background was photographed that way. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:55:40 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
How is this different than Idnic filling in the background of her Evolution shot? |
Idnic's background was photographed that way. |
Not understanding your reply. Her background was photographed with a chunk of the right edge showing miscellaneous clutter in the studio which she then basically painted black in the final shot. What do you mean? |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:57:22 PM · #54 |
| in that case, idnic cloned some of the existing background around the foot that was not in front of the background. that doesn't really have anything to do with vignetting, as the entire background of her shot was not replaced. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:59:20 PM · #55 |
| So now were back to vignetting... Heheh. Alright nevermind. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:59:56 PM · #56 |
I'm uneasy with this reliance on having the darkening of the BG affect the subject for it to be "legal": I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Incidentally, my use of the term "vignette" was for want of a better term; I was well aware it wasn't a "lens vignette", but in traditional photography, going WAY back, there's a long history of vignettes being applied in enlargements, usually "reverse vignettes" where an oval subject area is masked out and everything outside that is faded to light or white, but sometimes a darkening vignette. So the term "vignette" does not apply only to corner darkening as a lens artifact.
Anyway, here's my concern: with us landscape photographers, it's COMMON to mask out the landscape to isolate the sky and apply a darkening gradient from the top down on the sky only, not affecting any objects (hills, trees, buildings, whatever) in "front" of the sky. The way I read what's being said here, that is being called questionable...
R.
ETA: I don't have any real problem with the DQ of this particular image; realistically, in effect, if not in actuality, he photographed the tools against a plain background, extracted them, and pasted them on top of a "created" background with a strong oval shape in it, and I can see how that's a no-no. My worry is with the way the explanations are being worded here, and how that can affect gradients/vignettings that I had always thought were legal and have often used.
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 16:02:56.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:01:21 PM · #57 |
in the case of de sousa's shot it was more than just a simple vignette. he essentially replaced the entire background of the shot with a shape/feature/object (call it what you will) that changed the context of the shot.
had there been some spotlight-y effect in the middle to start with, we could debate the color shifting all day long. in this instance, however, there was none. the entire background (save for the plain white in the oval) was created in post-processing. that's the reason for the DQ.
i hope it goes without saying that none of us like disqualifying shots -- particularly those that are fun and popular. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:02:12 PM · #58 |
Cindy's shot description (according to karmat)
Before pp: A series of three people in a studio setting with a predominantly black background.
After pp: A series of three people in a studio setting with a predominantly black background.
The personification shot:
Before pp: Two tools (one is "spitting nails) on a solid white surface.
After pp: Two tools (one is "spitting nails") on a white surface with a blue oval.
Had there been even a slight hint of a vignette in the personification shot original, there wouldn't have been an issue. But, there wasn't, it was a completely fabricated part of the shot. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:04:17 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anyway, here's my concern: with us landscape photographers, it's COMMON to mask out the landscape to isolate the sky and apply a darkening gradient from the top down on the sky only, not affecting any objects (hills, trees, buildings, whatever) in "front" of the sky. The way I read what's being said here, that is being called questionable... |
no. it's really not. the focus here is that the oval in the background was a feature that did not exist in the original. there's no problem with selectively editing parts of the photo that already exist. the issue is that the editing created a completely new feature that didn't exist in the original.
if you were to use your super-mega landscape sky gradient techniques to create a rainbow that didn't exist in the original, it would be disqualified as well. not because of the technique used, but because of the object/feature/element/thingy that was created. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:05:04 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by karmat:
After pp: Two tools (one is "spitting nails") on a white surface with a blue oval.
|
hmm, wouldn't it be a blue surface with a white oval? :P |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:08:28 PM · #61 |
Okay...I understand that the vignetting wasn't the problem...it was more the fact that De Sousa 'ADDED' to the image. But what about 'REMOVING' from an image.
Examples are ripe just by going to Heida and Joey's portfolio. They regularly hide parts of their image by methods of burning and such.
So you can hide...but you can't add...even though it isn't a subject...but it is changing a colour, as in De Sousa's case.
Now with that in mind...what about that age old argument about the sofa that changed from white to black(or black to white). Only a portion of the image was changed...so how is that different to this...where only a portion of the image was changed...in it's colour?
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:08:43 PM · #62 |
So:
Adding a vignette is a no-go? I think back to Julia's wonderful red ribbon for best of 2006 - you're telling me that's a lens-effect vignette?
 |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:10:36 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
So:
Adding a vignette is a no-go? I think back to Julia's wonderful red ribbon for best of 2006 - you're telling me that's a lens-effect vignette?
|
They are saying that because the vignette had no altering effect on the tools...it was not classed as your standard vignette!! |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:12:14 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by karmat:
After pp: Two tools (one is "spitting nails") on a white surface with a blue oval.
|
hmm, wouldn't it be a blue surface with a white oval? :P |
yea. :) that.
(actually, the first time i typed it, I said white and black instead of white and blue. i'm getting closer. gotta stop this multi-tasking stuff. gonna get me) |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:12:51 PM · #65 |
this isn't about a vignette. stop saying vignette! :)
a blue vignette on the image in question would have put a blue cast over the tools as well. this was specifically done as a background, so it's not a vignette. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:13:05 PM · #66 |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:13:30 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anyway, here's my concern: with us landscape photographers, it's COMMON to mask out the landscape to isolate the sky and apply a darkening gradient from the top down on the sky only, not affecting any objects (hills, trees, buildings, whatever) in "front" of the sky. The way I read what's being said here, that is being called questionable... |
no. it's really not. the focus here is that the oval in the background was a feature that did not exist in the original. there's no problem with selectively editing parts of the photo that already exist. the issue is that the editing created a completely new feature that didn't exist in the original.
if you were to use your super-mega landscape sky gradient techniques to create a rainbow that didn't exist in the original, it would be disqualified as well. not because of the technique used, but because of the object/feature/element/thingy that was created. |
But this makes it seem that vignettes aren't legal unless there already was one. And that's not true either is it? Any vignette adding is a new feature. You can say... "vignette" as opposed to "plain background" in describing the image. So that means vignettes are out unless you did them in camera...
But that would be rediculous because as  Bear_Music vignettes are part of traditional photography.
I'm still lost. Really lost. This is splitting haris now and it's making me more nervous every minute. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:15:12 PM · #68 |
| *hands monica an avacado slushie as we sit on the couch of confusion* |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:15:55 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
this isn't about a vignette. stop saying vignette! :)
a blue vignette on the image in question would have put a blue cast over the tools as well. this was specifically done as a background, so it's not a vignette. |
So a vignette is not a vignette if I wanted to delet parts of it... like Bear_Music Said about NOT vignetting the trees, etc in a landscape?
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 16:17:51. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:17:27 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
*hands monica an avacado slushie as we sit on the couch of confusion* |
They make avocado slushies? LOL. Sounds odd... |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:17:28 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
this isn't about a vignette. stop saying vignette! :)
a blue vignette on the image in question would have put a blue cast over the tools as well. this was specifically done as a background, so it's not a vignette. |
Okey dokey - not in reference to Jorge's photo:
Are vignettes legal? |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:18:00 PM · #72 |
no one is calling this a vignette. it's not a vignette. it was not disqualified due to the addition of a vignette.
let me put it this way:
the fact that he made a giant oval shape in the middle of the photo completely with post-processing doesn't bother anyone? what if he had created a giant white star in the background? multiple stars? unicorns?
the reason the photo was disqualified is simply because the oval was created by drawing the blue around the edges. the oval was a prominent feature of the photograph that was absolutely nowhere in the original and 100% created in post-processing. that violates this rule:
Originally posted by Advanced Rules:
(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 04:18:44 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
Are vignettes legal? |
if you are enhancing a lighting effect or a lens effect that already exists somewhat in the original, it's legal. yes. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:19:46 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
Originally posted by muckpond:
this isn't about a vignette. stop saying vignette! :)
a blue vignette on the image in question would have put a blue cast over the tools as well. this was specifically done as a background, so it's not a vignette. |
Okey dokey - not in reference to Jorge's photo:
Are vignettes legal? |
Well obviously not. It would change my description of the photo!
Before PP: Two hot folks posing like James Bond a matte backdrop.
After PP: Two hot folds posing like James Bond with a kick ass vignette backdrop.
DUUUHHH. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:20:57 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by alfresco:
Are vignettes legal? |
if you are enhancing a lighting effect or a lens effect that already exists somewhat in the original, it's legal. yes. |
So that's basically a no. So shall we go back and DQ all vignettes that weren't origianlly there? Cus I'd bet that's most of them... |
|
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: 08/13/2025 05:39:05 PM EDT.
