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 151 - 175 of 222, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/14/2007 06:43:30 PM · #151
Originally posted by escapetooz:
So after 6 pages of long aggrivated discussions I still don't understand a darn thing. If anything I'm about a million times more confused on the rules than when I started. Basically seems the rules change with the wind and no one can keep up.

Can we somehow get a collected list of questions together with collective answers. Cus even the answers from the site council members are coming in differently and confusing everyone even more.


i've only seen 4 SC in this thread, really, and 2 of them have been around for less than 2 weeks. i'm sorry you are confused, but we are all pretty much repeating the same thing.

two things are kind of confusing the issues. 1) the rulesets that we have now have not been in place that long. 2) some of the SC in this thread haven't been here that long. they are expressing their thoughts in an effort to help, but haven't always been privy to all of the debates that have occur. they are trying to help.

we have, in the past, allowed vignetting in advanced editing as long as it does not fundamentally change the composition of the photo. that's the answer you're looking for.

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 18:43:55.
 02/14/2007 06:45:10 PM · #152
Originally posted by muckpond:
i apologize for leaving neil totally adrift here. go easy on him. it's his first time swimming with the sharks.

here's the deal: adding vignette is ok in advanced editing IF it doesn't fundamentally change the composition of the photo. by that, i mean if the vignette doesn't completely obliterate something that would have been described in the original photo's description.

in advanced editing it all boils down to this: are the edits that you are making enough that it significantly changes the description of the photograph from its original?


original. description: two people.


edited. description: two people. legal.


edited again. description: one person. (or one person and a big oval shape.) either way, it's illegal.

if there's something in the background that's significant enough to be part of the description, don't obliterate it. it's that simple.


But in the DQ'd photo, we are talking about ADDING something, not obliterating. This example by Djabordjabor seems to do exactly the same thing: changes it from "hands against asphalt" to "spotlit hands against asphalt", or something...



R.
 02/14/2007 06:47:07 PM · #153
I about half followed this 'cause when it got too technical, I glazed over a little 'cause I don't know how to do some of those things.

I would like to see the whole vignetting thing addressed as I recently discovered the technique and I like it.

Even though it's (I think) what's called a global change, it seems to vary in level depending on the centering of it, right?

So if you darken it heavily, and accentuate it, that produces a significant shape change to the subject area.

Or am I confused?

As I understand it, it's not allowed at all in basic, correct?
 02/14/2007 06:48:21 PM · #154
Originally posted by muckpond:
i apologize for leaving neil totally adrift here. go easy on him. it's his first time swimming with the sharks.




SC for dinner again ;-)
 02/14/2007 06:49:33 PM · #155
Originally posted by Falc:
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.

Just my two-cents from a DPC SC newbie.


Neil, I know its hard defending and making interpretations of the rules, but I have to say if you enforce darkening edges then you can DQ just about every advanced edit image I submit.

I think your interpretation is just a tad too strict.


Ok, I see where my post is confusing. Sorry.

I was NOT commenting on "Darkened Edges" at all! That was the title of the example I was responding to!!!!! Yanko's title. I just didn't want to go to the trouble of including his images in my response.

WOW. That carried things way off here. Here it is, this time I'll include Yanko's words and example.

Darkened edges in photoshop


I responded to the creation of a shape! Not the darkened edges, and if you read my words, I said:

"(A new feature has been added that wasn't there, an oval background)."


02/14/2007 06:50:26 PM · #156
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

But in the DQ'd photo, we are talking about ADDING something, not obliterating. This example by Djabordjabor seems to do exactly the same thing: changes it from "hands against asphalt" to "spotlit hands against asphalt", or something...



R.


we're not talking about the DQ'd photo anymore, AFAIK. that was never a case of vignetting.

that being said, without having seen the original of this shot, how do you know that there wasn't a spotlight in the setup? or that the shadowing you see is merely the result of enhancing the shadows that were already there?

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 18:51:01.
 02/14/2007 06:51:02 PM · #157
This is legal... Correct?
==>

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 18:52:20.
 02/14/2007 06:52:08 PM · #158
Originally posted by De Sousa:
This is legal... Correct?


i would not consider this legal.
 02/14/2007 06:52:22 PM · #159
Originally posted by nshapiro:


Ok, I see where my post is confusing. Sorry.

I responded to the creation of a shape! Not the darkened edges, and if you read my words, I said:


Understood, we will spit you out on the beach this time ;-)

Thanks Neil
 02/14/2007 06:57:07 PM · #160
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by nshapiro:


Ok, I see where my post is confusing. Sorry.

I responded to the creation of a shape! Not the darkened edges, and if you read my words, I said:


Understood, we will spit you out on the beach this time ;-)

Thanks Neil


Thanks. Note to self:

Be careful when quoting. Write slowly and carefully, but swim fast.


02/14/2007 07:03:01 PM · #161
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by De Sousa:
This is legal... Correct?


i would not consider this legal.


Wow. Where's that can of worms thumb.
02/14/2007 07:04:15 PM · #162
Originally posted by nshapiro:


Thanks. Note to self:

Be careful when quoting. Write slowly and carefully, but swim fast.



fortunately i've got more butt than they've got teeth. ;)
 02/14/2007 07:04:49 PM · #163
I think we need to do some separating between De Sousa's image that was DQ'd and others with vignettes.

I'm not even sure I'd call De Sousa's shot a vignette. I'd call it a sharp gradient on the background. The difference to me is that a vignette affects all portions of the picture which fall under its area. Notice in De Sousa's shot the effect does not alter the wrench or the hammer where they intersect. It has been masked off.



I think SC will be doing themselves a favor by going with the party line that a major element was added which significantly altered the description of the picture. (my understanding was the background was completely white before). The less they use the word "vignette" in their descriptions the better. There have been numerous, numerous pictures which have used burning or gradients to remove objects which were deemed legal. Let's not go there, but rather lets chalk this one up to something being added to the picture.
 02/14/2007 07:05:06 PM · #164
Originally posted by De Sousa:
This is legal... Correct?
==>


Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by De Sousa:
This is legal... Correct?


i would not consider this legal.


<=========== Scratches head...
 02/14/2007 07:07:02 PM · #165
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think SC will be doing themselves a favor by going with the party line that a major element was added which significantly altered the description of the picture. (my understanding was the background was completely white before). The less they use the word "vignette" in their descriptions the better.


ok. sorry. i just have to say it. NO ONE ON THE SC EVER SAID VIGNETTE. once it was brought up in here, we had about 15 posts trying to quell that as the reason. then the conversation went to vignetting and it was all downhill from there.

sorry. i just had to say that.

Originally posted by muckpond:
no one is calling this a vignette. it's not a vignette. it was not disqualified due to the addition of a vignette.
 02/14/2007 07:07:08 PM · #166
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by De Sousa:
This is legal... Correct?


i would not consider this legal.


Wow. Where's that can of worms thumb.



02/14/2007 07:08:10 PM · #167
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by De Sousa:
This is legal... Correct?
==>


Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by De Sousa:
This is legal... Correct?


i would not consider this legal.


<=========== Scratches head...


how can you guys vote on this stuff when you haven't seen the original of the Djabordjabor shot?

doesn't the "Assume good faith." forum rule apply to SC too? :P
 02/14/2007 07:09:48 PM · #168
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:


Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by De Sousa:
This is legal... Correct?


i would not consider this legal.


<=========== Scratches head...


I go with LEGAL on this too
 02/14/2007 07:11:35 PM · #169
Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by muckpond:
no one is calling this a vignette. it's not a vignette. it was not disqualified due to the addition of a vignette.


Ok but Jorge calls it a vignette.


Originally posted by De Sousa:

I’m posting this to help others to better understand some subjective rules about “Advanced Editing”.

My entry “Boss Shouting” at Personification II challenge has been DQed because I used a technique usually accepted without problems - a Circular Gradient Map Layer – to create a vignette (the blue sky vignette). There are a lot of examples and some winning photos with that effect here at DPC without being DQed. So it was a surprise to me when I received the notification and the justification about the illegality I did in my entry.

Lets see in an easy way the interpretation of the rules – “Advanced Editing”.
Can I use a Gradient Map Layer? – Yes I can!
Can I use a Hue/Sat Layer to change colors in my pic? – Yes I can!

In the definition of a vignette, there is no reference to the size, color or perfection of the shape. The only reference talks about changes in the luminosity coming from the corners to the center, pushing the viewer attention to the center.

Soâ€Â¦ What was wrong with my pic??????
The easy answer: - You can use a vignette but don’t let them notice you used it!

Does that makes sense?... Not for me.
Here is an example, in every ways, similar to what I did.
Example

Are you still confused?...
Ok, so lets put this in a more easy way... Lets talk using only black and white words.
If I cropped my image with an elliptical shape to push the attention to the center, should the pic be DQed?


Please note that I’m posting this only with one propose in mind: - Warning to the DPC community about some subjective rules that can ruin your afford and work.


Message edited by author 2007-02-14 19:12:08.
 02/14/2007 07:22:43 PM · #170
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by wavelength:


??


AH YES!


That what submitted under a different version of the Advanced Rules, which had entirely different standards for addition and removal of compositional elements. As such, it's not really relevant to this discussion, nor is any entry prior to Black & White III (Challenge 583).

This entry was discussed at length in the forums at the time, and the reasons it was legal have not changed since then.

~Terry

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 19:26:42.
 02/14/2007 07:24:55 PM · #171
OK acquiesced!

Back to the question at hand vignette or major element?
 02/14/2007 07:27:29 PM · #172
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by De Sousa:
This is legal... Correct?


i would not consider this legal.


i would not consider this legal either.
====>

however, i WOULD consider this legal.
====>

that said...without seeing the original photo, how can you make an informed judgement about what should or should not be DQ'd?
 02/14/2007 07:27:52 PM · #173
Originally posted by muckpond:


how can you guys vote on this stuff when you haven't seen the original of the Djabordjabor shot?

doesn't the "Assume good faith." forum rule apply to SC too? :P


Please Rob muckpond
Don't close your eyes... How can it be possible to have light in the arms and not in the near background?

What is the difference Between my shot and Djabordjabor shot?... Is only about the color used?... please see them side by side


I did exactly the same but with two minimal differences. Color and a perfect shape. I didn't add any element, just played with luminosity from the corners to the center using a gradient map. If you call it a new blue element, I can call to Djabordjabor shot a new black element.
02/14/2007 07:28:22 PM · #174
Originally posted by De Sousa:
This is legal... Correct?




(Assumed) detailed background with heavy shadows in original ---> detailed background with heavy shadows in entry. Legal. Before and after, it's still two hands in strong light on a textured background. Djabordjabor's entry had "stuff" in his background, and it still does. The dark areas look like a lighting effect on the existing composition. De Sousa didn't have anything in his background, and now it does. The colored areas do not look like a lighting effect on the existing composition.

==>

Completely blank background ---> detailed background with heavy shadows. Illegal. This isn't enhancing what was already there, it's creating something that was never there. A basic description of each photo would be different. Note that making the background in Djabordjabor's example completely white would also be illegal for the same reason.

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 19:39:06.
 02/14/2007 07:35:53 PM · #175
So Not Legal.


Legal?


Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 02:31:19 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 02:31:19 PM EDT.