Personification II Results Recalculated

02/14/2007 04:21:16 PM · #76

Got lost in the muck

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 16:41:32.

02/14/2007 04:21:39 PM · #77

Originally posted by escapetooz:

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?

sorry, i'm really not trying to be argumentative. i'm really trying to clarify this. the vignette language is confusing everyone and never once did anyone in an "official" (ha ha) capacity say that was the issue at stake.

bear was not talking about a vignette in the example i read. he was talking about using a gradient to darken (or lighten) existing features in the photograph. if he wants to modify the sky but not the trees in front, that's fine.

however, if he were to dodge and burn clouds into an otherwise cloudless sky, that would not be OK. those would be features added into the photo where there were none before.

02/14/2007 04:22:31 PM · #78

Originally posted by escapetooz:

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...

actually, we do review them. and we've disqualified some for the same reason.

alfresco

Nikon D700

02/14/2007 04:22:46 PM · #79

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.

Then I refer to my previous post about Julia's photo. ???

LMA:
Thank you SCites for explaining, I know your job is tres difficult and I ask only for clarification, any referenced photo I use is merely that and not an indictment of any sort.

I do not question you, your motives, nor your judgments - I question what I don't understand.
:)

02/14/2007 04:24:51 PM · #80

Originally posted by alfresco:

Then I refer to my previous post about Julia's photo. ???

i just reviewed the original and, yes, there is some vignetting to it. she did enhance it significantly, though. i'll give you that.

edited to add: look at the description of the before and after photo, too. that's our rule of thumb when making these calls.

before: photo of bride with veil
after: photo of bride with veil

neither the main subject of the photo nor its composition changed from capture to finished product. that is not the case in the de sousa photo.

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 16:26:29.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/14/2007 04:29:13 PM · #81

Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

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...

actually, we do review them. and we've disqualified some for the same reason.

Grrr. I'm sorry I'm not trying to fight here or be disruptive but I'm getting really frustrated. I've asked numerous times in different postings if vignettes are legal and I always got an "of course" type answer. Never once did I hear it had to already exist.

Vignette that isn't dodging or burning would be possibly... new layer, paint the vignette and put the layer on some mode such as color or overlay or multiply or reduce opacity? So this already isn't legal? and even more of a no no if someone erased the parts that are over the subject?

That doesn't seem right. Vignettes are a simple procedure used to enhance photos since practically the begining of photography. I see it as no different as a border or sharpening or selective desaturation.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/14/2007 04:30:01 PM · #82

Originally posted by escapetooz:

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.

Larus' original had a vignette, too. I believe we have allowed added vignettes in Advanced (I'm not positive on this), but that's not what happened here. This was a well defined shape created in Photoshop on a blank background. It was NOT a matter of darkening the edges of the photo.

02/14/2007 04:32:42 PM · #83

ok, perhaps i spoke too soon. i was really here to answer questions specifically about the de sousa photo, which is not about vignetting at all.

---

TOTALLY NEW TOPIC ZONE: vignettes

1) yes, they're absolutely legal if they're already there and you are enhancing them during post-processing.

2) yes, you can add SOME vignette to a photo so long as it does not fundamentally change the composition (i.e. removing the background) or the description of your photo from original capture to completed product.

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 16:34:48.

alfresco

Nikon D700

02/14/2007 04:33:10 PM · #84

Thanks muck, you're probably getting tired of telling me :\

Originally posted by muckman:

neither the main subject of the photo nor its composition changed from capture to finished product

This statement may be why people get confused since it sounds like it's ok to create things .... ?

Bottom line:
In Julia's case she exaggerated what was there, in Jorge's he created something that was not.

eta -
uh-oh, just read scalvert's post ... so added vignettes are legal in advanced?

confused again ....

eata --
I think part of my problem is I mentally refer to images that have been dq'ed / not dq'ed and just plumb can't remember if they were basic/advanced, I just lump them into legal/not-legal.

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 16:36:17.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/14/2007 04:37:27 PM · #85

say it 4 times, slowly.

The recently disqualified image was not because of a vignette.
The recently disqualified image was not because of a vignette.
The recently disqualified image was not because of a vignette.
The recently disqualified image was not because of a vignette.

the blue background thingy (not a vignette) isn't added evenly across the entire image - it is masked to look as if it is under the hammer/ wrench.

A vignette is a different thing and would appear over all of the elements equally.

02/14/2007 04:39:02 PM · #86

Originally posted by Gordon:

Yea we kind of aren't really refering to that image any more. Just general questions now.

02/14/2007 04:42:07 PM · #87

I got lost in the muck so I will make my point and bow out.

Originally posted by muckpond:

the fact that he made a giant oval shape in the middle of the photo completely with post-processing doesn't bother anyone?

What bothers me is he knew he was going to get DQ'd and entered anyway. Wins the ribbon gets the accolades but doesnt want it on his front page so he sets up the shot to win and fail at the same time. IMO that is just rubbing my nose in it and I don't really care for the smell.

02/14/2007 04:42:37 PM · #88

hopefully this will help.

advanced editing + some vignetting in original = legal.

advanced editing + minimal vignetting in original - fundamental compositional change = legal.

basic editing + added vignetting = disqualified.

--

i can't specifically answer your question about your photo, escapetooz, because we haven't seen the original.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/14/2007 04:44:21 PM · #89

Originally posted by alfresco:

*hands monica an avacado slushie as we sit on the couch of confusion*

I'd like to add my vote to banning all vignettes, even the ones created in camera.

but more importantly, I'm thrilled that "monica" is finally being used as a verb.

02/14/2007 04:45:06 PM · #90

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

I got lost in the muck so I will make my point and bow out.

Originally posted by muckpond:

the fact that he made a giant oval shape in the middle of the photo completely with post-processing doesn't bother anyone?

What bothers me is he knew he was going to get DQ'd and entered anyway. Wins the ribbon gets the accolades but doesnt want it on his front page so he sets up the shot to win and fail at the same time. IMO that is just rubbing my nose in it and I don't really care for the smell.

I did see this. And if that was the case that he knew then that is pretty sucky. I was unaware of any of that.

For me though. I follow the rules. I'm a goody goody. I want to do well fair and square. But how can I follow what I don't understand?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/14/2007 04:45:53 PM · #91

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by alfresco:
*hands monica an avacado slushie as we sit on the couch of confusion*

I'd like to add my vote to banning all vignettes, even the ones created in camera.

but more importantly, I'm thrilled that "monica" is finally being used as a verb.

Being used as a verb? I'm lost.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/14/2007 04:48:27 PM · #92

Originally posted by escapetooz:

What bothers me is he knew he was going to get DQ'd and entered anyway.

I don't think he knew it would be DQ'd.

02/14/2007 04:48:55 PM · #93

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
What bothers me is he knew he was going to get DQ'd and entered anyway.

I don't think he knew it would be DQ'd.

Seriously?

02/14/2007 04:49:08 PM · #94

Originally posted by muckpond:

hopefully this will help.

advanced editing + some vignetting in original = legal.

advanced editing + minimal vignetting in original - fundamental compositional change = legal.

basic editing + added vignetting = disqualified.

--

i can't specifically answer your question about your photo, escapetooz, because we haven't seen the original.

That's why I posted a photo I had used a similar technique on in the forum to specifically ask what was legal so I didn't make any mistakes.

That was this one...

Which I'm understanding now to be completely illegal. Should I just submit my original now and bow out gracefully as one of the many who will be disapointed by misunderstanding the rules? I doubt I will place high enough to have a forced validation but now after all this talk and fuss I'm sure someone will call me out eventually anyhow.

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 16:49:45.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/14/2007 04:49:33 PM · #95

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by alfresco:
*hands monica an avacado slushie as we sit on the couch of confusion*

I'd like to add my vote to banning all vignettes, even the ones created in camera.

but more importantly, I'm thrilled that "monica" is finally being used as a verb.

Being used as a verb? I'm lost.

oh, I thought his hands were monicaing. I didn't know that was somebody's name. never mind. (severely disappointed)

02/14/2007 04:52:30 PM · #96

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
What bothers me is he knew he was going to get DQ'd and entered anyway.

I don't think he knew it would be DQ'd.

Alright then!

//dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=545884

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 16:52:35.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/14/2007 04:54:58 PM · #97

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Alright then!

//dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=545884

um... doesn't that disprove your point?

02/14/2007 05:00:38 PM · #98

Originally posted by escapetooz:

i can't answer your question because i don't know what photo you are talking about and what technique you used. i don't think you've done anything illegal, and if you are worried about it based on what you've seen in this thread, you probably needn't be.

if you've added vignette to your photo, does it significantly change the composition? does it add a blatant, describable feature that isn't there? or is it simply a manner of sly editing to give the photo dramatic impact?

this is not the right thread to be reading to cause concern about your vignetting or colorization techniques -- NEITHER of those were the reason why the photo in question was disqualified.

02/14/2007 05:03:15 PM · #99

Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Which I'm understanding now to be completely illegal. Should I just submit my original now and bow out gracefully as one of the many who will be disapointed by misunderstanding the rules? I doubt I will place high enough to have a forced validation but now after all this talk and fuss I'm sure someone will call me out eventually anyhow.

i can't answer your question because i don't know what photo you are talking about and what technique you used. i don't think you've done anything illegal, and if you are worried about it based on what you've seen in this thread, you probably needn't be.

if you've added vignette to your photo, does it significantly change the composition? does it add a blatant, describable feature that isn't there? or is it simply a manner of sly editing to give the photo dramatic impact?

this is not the right thread to be reading to cause concern about your vignetting or colorization techniques -- NEITHER of those were the reason why the photo in question was disqualified.

Another similar technique.

original already posted.