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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> Personification II Results Recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 222, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/14/2007 05:11:18 PM · #101
Please see this thread
loked as soon as I posted it.


Message edited by author 2007-02-14 17:26:04.
 02/14/2007 05:12:06 PM · #102
Originally posted by De Sousa:
Please see this thread
loked as soon as I posted it.


I did and I quoted the link in my post. I just wanted a straight answer that's all.

Did you think you would be DQ'd over this image?



Message edited by author 2007-02-14 17:15:45.
 02/14/2007 05:16:33 PM · #103
Ok just to be clear would all of these get DQed here?

Original photo unedited (pretend the noise is from a TV channel i.e. part of the photo and not signal degradation with the camera sensor)


Darkened edges in photoshop


Darkened just the top in photoshop (i.e. what Bear Music does a lot with his landscapes


Also consider these three:

Original unedited (pretend it's a bright overexposed sky


Applied Bear's technique of darkening the top


Applied Bear's technique but a bit more subtle


Are all of these illegal in both Basic and Advance?

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 17:25:11.
 02/14/2007 05:25:53 PM · #104
its probably worth pointing out that none of your examples represent the standard form of a vignette or neutral density filter (where the guy in red would be affected by the adjustment equally to the background)

Not sure if you meant that or not.
 02/14/2007 05:27:34 PM · #105
Originally posted by Gordon:
its probably worth pointing out that none of your examples represent the standard form of a vignette or neutral density filter (where the guy in red would be affected by the adjustment equally to the background)

Not sure if you meant that or not.


He didn't want to darken the little dude. That would make sense... why black out his head?
 02/14/2007 05:28:20 PM · #106
Originally posted by Gordon:
its probably worth pointing out that none of your examples represent the standard form of a vignette or neutral density filter (where the guy in red would be affected by the adjustment equally to the background)

Not sure if you meant that or not.


Correct. These are all to be seen as "edits" made in photoshop and not within the camera.
 02/14/2007 05:28:30 PM · #107
Originally posted by Gordon:
its probably worth pointing out that none of your examples represent the standard form of a vignette or neutral density filter (where the guy in red would be affected by the adjustment equally to the background)

Not sure if you meant that or not.


You are not considering the use of masks allowed in "Advanced Editing" rules
 02/14/2007 05:38:00 PM · #108
Originally posted by Gordon:
its probably worth pointing out that none of your examples represent the standard form of a vignette or neutral density filter (where the guy in red would be affected by the adjustment equally to the background)

Not sure if you meant that or not.


that's correct. in a normal vignette, and in the example that was posted in the other thread, the effect is to lighten the center and darken the edges...not masked and added to completely change a solid color background.
02/14/2007 05:38:16 PM · #109
Well I guess we will never know...
 02/14/2007 05:38:58 PM · #110
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok just to be clear would all of these get DQed here?

Are all of these illegal in both Basic and Advance?


I'm a SC newbie, and about after one week, all I have to say is it's not an easy job. But I'll take a stab at this:

a) Yanko's example which was titled "Darkened edges in photoshop"

The picture in this example would be illegal both in basic (spot editing) and advanced (A new feature has been added that wasn't there, an oval background). Another image was recently DQ'd from the nude challenge because the photog created a texture using burn and dodge on the background. Same logic.

b) Yanko's example which was titled "Darkened just the top in photoshop (i.e. what Bear Music does a lot with his landscapes"

Illegal basic. For advanced, it would depend on how darkened, and what was there in the original. If done right, this should look like variations in light, not a gradient on the background as yours looks like. So I'm pretending I'm looking at a well done image when I say that.

The last three cases are more of the same (like b) above. It depends on what you obscured, and whether you've added a feature. In the middle example, your gradient is so pronounced, it could seem like a feature.

The question you could ask, which I think applies to the DeSousa case, is whether or not you've changed the nature of the background in a major way.

When I first saw DeSousa's photo, I honestly thought the background was painted that way. It was a real "feature" of the photo, as if it were photographed. And it could have been, as far as I could tell.

Just my two-cents from a DPC SC newbie.

Edited to clarify the titles which were quotes from Yanko, not accurate descriptions of editing I was commenting on.

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 19:17:27.
 02/14/2007 05:42:01 PM · #111
Originally posted by nshapiro:


Illegal basic. For advanced, it would depend on how darkened, and what was there in the original. If done right, this should look like variations in light, not a gradient on the background as yours looks like. So I'm pretending I'm looking at a well done image when I say that.

Just my two-cents from a DPC SC newbie.


I understand you are a newbie...but no one answered my question before. Heida and Joey often darken their background to the point of removing or hiding objects...and yet they are not dq'ed.
 02/14/2007 05:42:44 PM · #112
Originally posted by De Sousa:
Originally posted by Gordon:
its probably worth pointing out that none of your examples represent the standard form of a vignette or neutral density filter (where the guy in red would be affected by the adjustment equally to the background)

Not sure if you meant that or not.


You are not considering the use of masks allowed in "Advanced Editing" rules


Correct. But if we want to start talking about masking off areas, we should stop talking about it in terms of it being a 'vignette' or gradient, because it isn't.
 02/14/2007 05:43:25 PM · #113
Example -

As stated in the about...lots of burning was done to darken areas of the image and almost totally remove the shoe tongue. Why is this legal and De Sousas not?
 02/14/2007 05:46:52 PM · #114
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by nshapiro:


Illegal basic. For advanced, it would depend on how darkened, and what was there in the original. If done right, this should look like variations in light, not a gradient on the background as yours looks like. So I'm pretending I'm looking at a well done image when I say that.

Just my two-cents from a DPC SC newbie.


I understand you are a newbie...but no one answered my question before. Heida and Joey often darken their background to the point of removing or hiding objects...and yet they are not dq'ed.


I can't talk to the past, but in this case it's not how light or how dark--it's the creation of a background feature. Suppose, in an advanced challenge, I used burn and dodge and wrote the word "god" in the clouds. Or drew a face. And suppose I only darkened it a little, enough to see the word, or face, very subtly.

I think we'd all agree it was a DQ, because I added something that wasn't there. I put DeSousa's example in the same category.

02/14/2007 05:48:15 PM · #115
Originally posted by nshapiro:

I'm a SC newbie. . .

The question you could ask, which I think applies to the DeSousa case, is whether or not you've changed the nature of the background in a major way.

When I first saw DeSousa's photo, I honestly thought the background was painted that way. It was a real "feature" of the photo, as if it were photographed. And it could have been, as far as I could tell.

Just my two-cents from a DPC SC newbie.


Perhaps the newbies just haven't assimilated enough into the DPC culture to understand why this is so confusing? :) I'm new too, and I have to say that I understand the SC's decision, because I too (and from the comments, like pretty much everyone who looked at DeSousa's shot) thought that the blue was part of a physical background on which DeSousa had set the tools. The blue background makes the shot, it's definitely a major element of the composition.

And now I will again assume my position in the newbie corner, and shut up . . . ;)
 02/14/2007 05:51:12 PM · #116
just to clarify. . .

New member to DPC, not to DPC SC. (a real newbie)
 02/14/2007 05:51:23 PM · #117
Originally posted by nshapiro:

I can't talk to the past, but in this case it's not how light or how dark--it's the creation of a background feature. Suppose, in an advanced challenge, I used burn and dodge and wrote the word "god" in the clouds. Or drew a face. And suppose I only darkened it a little, enough to see the word, or face, very subtly.

I think we'd all agree it was a DQ, because I added something that wasn't there. I put DeSousa's example in the same category.


That's exactly how I see it.
 02/14/2007 05:51:34 PM · #118
Originally posted by nshapiro:

a) Darkened edges in photoshop

Illegal both in basic (spot editing) and advanced (A new feature has been added that wasn't there, an oval background). Another image was recently DQ'd from the nude challenge because the photog created a texture using burn and dodge on the background. Same logic.


This can't possibly be correct (for advanced).

(nshapiro) I wanted to add a note to this without replying or bumping this because it led to confusion. I just want to point out that the heading "a) Darkened edges in photoshop" was just a reference to Yanko's title...not my words at all and not I was commenting on the example. I replied to the picture and just quoted the title (See my post later in this thread for more clarifications)



Message edited by nshapiro - Wanted to clarify this quoted text.
 02/14/2007 05:52:56 PM · #119
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok just to be clear would all of these get DQed here?

Are all of these illegal in both Basic and Advance?


I'm a SC newbie, and about after one week, all I have to say is it's not an easy job. But I'll take a stab at this:

a) Darkened edges in photoshop

Illegal both in basic (spot editing) and advanced (A new feature has been added that wasn't there, an oval background). Another image was recently DQ'd from the nude challenge because the photog created a texture using burn and dodge on the background. Same logic.

b) Darkened just the top in photoshop (i.e. what Bear Music does a lot with his landscapes

Illegal basic. For advanced, it would depend on how darkened, and what was there in the original. If done right, this should look like variations in light, not a gradient on the background as yours looks like. So I'm pretending I'm looking at a well done image when I say that.

The last three cases are more of the same (like b) above. It depends on what you obscured, and whether you've added a feature. In the middle example, your gradient is so pronounced, it could seem like a feature.

The question you could ask, which I think applies to the DeSousa case, is whether or not you've changed the nature of the background in a major way.

When I first saw DeSousa's photo, I honestly thought the background was painted that way. It was a real "feature" of the photo, as if it were photographed. And it could have been, as far as I could tell.

Just my two-cents from a DPC SC newbie.


Darkened edges in photoshop

Illegal both

So that brings us back to all the examples stated if darkening edges is always illegal. That means a whole lot of photos would be dqed. And no one wants that to happen.

The question you could ask, which I think applies to the DeSousa case, is whether or not you've changed the nature of the background in a major way.

So changing the background color is out? Even though you can selectively change the color of things? To me that's changing the background in a major way yet is otherwise completely legal. And why shouldn't it be? Not everyone can afford an array of the different colors they need to work on their photo. Then that would make me wonder too about the Purple challenge. Where many of the photographs weren't ACTUALLY purple.

02/14/2007 05:52:56 PM · #120
I'd says if the tongue was burned to the point of "not being there" and De Sousas was DQ...then screem should have been DQ'd.

I think the rules says you cannot remove a major element....it doesn't say how you "can't" remove it.

Originally posted by Judi:
Example -

As stated in the about...lots of burning was done to darken areas of the image and almost totally remove the shoe tongue. Why is this legal and De Sousas not?

02/14/2007 05:53:17 PM · #121
Originally posted by nshapiro:

I can't talk to the past, but in this case it's not how light or how dark--it's the creation of a background feature. Suppose, in an advanced challenge, I used burn and dodge and wrote the word "god" in the clouds. Or drew a face. And suppose I only darkened it a little, enough to see the word, or face, very subtly.


OK then how about Judi's example of the shoe and the tongue being burned out? In my mind the tongue is a major element of a shoe.



Too late but still valid!

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 17:53:47.
 02/14/2007 05:53:48 PM · #122
I'd think the shoe tongue would be a minor distracting element.

Originally posted by kenskid:
I'd says if the tongue was burned to the point of "not being there" and De Sousas was DQ...then screem should have been DQ'd.

I think the rules says you cannot remove a major element....it doesn't say how you "can't" remove it.

Originally posted by Judi:
Example -

As stated in the about...lots of burning was done to darken areas of the image and almost totally remove the shoe tongue. Why is this legal and De Sousas not?
02/14/2007 05:55:29 PM · #123
Originally posted by Judi:
Example -

As stated in the about...lots of burning was done to darken areas of the image and almost totally remove the shoe tongue. Why is this legal and De Sousas not?


the background in the original of this photo is completely black anyway. it was only enhanced. and we've always allowed (in advanced editing) minor distracting elements, i.e. telephone poles or electrical lines, etc., to be removed by cloning or burning. the problem arises when something is added to a photo that wasn't there to begin with.

*edited to clarify that i meant minor distracting elements.*

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 17:58:01.
 02/14/2007 05:56:06 PM · #124
Originally posted by sher:
Originally posted by Judi:
Example -

As stated in the about...lots of burning was done to darken areas of the image and almost totally remove the shoe tongue. Why is this legal and De Sousas not?


the background in the original of this photo is completely black anyway. it was only enhanced. and we've always allowed (in advanced editing) distracting elements, i.e. telephone poles or electrical lines, etc., to be removed by cloning or burning. the problem arises when something is added to a photo that wasn't there to begin with.


The tongue of the shoe is not a major element of the shoe?
 02/14/2007 05:56:34 PM · #125
I think there's an important difference in the discussion ADDING a feature and REMOVING an element of the photo. Perhaps we should keep the examples to the more relevant case of adding a feature.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 05:39:02 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: 08/13/2025 05:39:02 PM EDT.