| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2007 07:19:45 AM · #26 |
| Did you think your photo may be questioned. If so is there a facility for you to pre-submit your photo with details of PP so that a comment/judgement can be made so that you could make an informed decision before submitting. Excuse my ignorance, just trying to work things out. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 07:23:26 AM · #27 |
| Adding the light rays is creating elements that did not exist before, thus a DQ is perfectly valid. The original would have scored just as high IMHO. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 07:30:45 AM · #28 |
| OK, that is looking like a feature added that was not there before. With Photoshop, you can add smoke or mist effects, and these would obviously be illegal in Advanced too. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 07:33:56 AM · #29 |
I'm OK with it... But that doesn't clarify my doubt on what is a feature and what is not...
Originally posted by craigester:
OK, that is looking like a feature added that was not there before. With Photoshop, you can add smoke or mist effects, and these would obviously be illegal in Advanced too. |
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 07:35:39 AM · #30 |
| I think a feature is something of significance in the photo. The rays are a significant feature and play quite a big part of the photos impact. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 07:38:54 AM · #31 |
| Could someone also tell me what the blue and grey folders in front of the suject (thread) signify. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 07:39:57 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Monique64:
Could someone also tell me what the blue and grey folders in front of the suject (thread) signify. |
Blue = forum thread unread.
Grey = forum thread read.
Edit for wangled turds!!!
Message edited by author 2007-03-28 07:40:22.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 07:51:48 AM · #33 |
Oh DARN!!! I am so so sorry! That photo is AMAZING! I really thought it would be one of the ribbon winners.
I totally understand how disappointed you are. I lost a ribbon once for misunderstanding what was legal and what wasn't :( |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 08:44:38 AM · #34 |
Thank you Sandy.
Just bumping this consideration to understand your opinion. My intention is to better clarify this piece of the rule.
That's what I did: I darkened and highlight the existing feature (window bottom part). Why should that be different by highlitghting some specific parts of the sky or darkening them by creating dramatic effects.
As an example, consider Heida shot (and I love Heida and this shot so don't take me wrong):
The border between staying in that specific rule and breaking it is not that black or white...
I hope my DQ can contribute to make it more clear.
Originally posted by Monique64:
I am new and have only entered my first shot last week. I am paranoid about doing too much to a photo and read the rules several times while processing a shot. The photo is indeed beautiful but I do have to agree with the DQ. You have added an entirely new aspect to the image that did not exist in the original. If the rays were in the original and you used a contrast feature to highlight them to bring them out more that would have been ok but you have introduced a new feature. I presume dodge and burn are meant more to darken or highlight existing features. Hope I have this right being a novice/new. |
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 08:52:52 AM · #35 |
In the original you can faintly (very faint) see one set of light rays (nearest the girl). Looks like in your dodging you, in essence, added light rays that weren't there? The mind can accept them visually, but from a strict photographic sense it's easy to see how SC considered that another element was added in the final result.
The way I understand it, in Heida's shot (which has been brought up before), the pattern in the clouds was there, just emphasized?
Just want to add, that I also think you have a very nice photo, although I do like the end result of PP better (color tone, bg behind girl darkened, window blurred), with or without the rays. :) |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 08:56:04 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The way I understand it, in Heida's shot (which has been brought up before), the pattern in the clouds was there, just emphasized? |
This is exactly right. The light rays in the shot in question were not there originally and were completely fabricated in PP. I will also say that shots as old as Heida's shouldn't be used to interpret the rules, since you will notice the rules have changed a number of times since then and you would be walking on dangerous ground in some other cases.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 08:58:56 AM · #37 |
Hi Silvestro,
Sorry about the DQ; we never want to DQ someone, especially when it's clear that it's just a rules misinterpretation. Let me try and clarify the "features" rule a little. We did consider the creation of the light beams to be creation of a feature that was not present in the original. The Advanced Rules allow selective darkening or lightening as long as it doesn't create recognizable features in the photo. In this case, the viewer is led to believe that the light beams were present, when in fact they were not. That's different than highlighting an area of a photo with a vignette or similar device, and different from darkening or lightening a specific pre-existing object. While this difference can seem subtle, and there are grey areas, this rule seems to be the best way to allow selective changes without allowing wholesale creation of objects. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 09:14:08 AM · #38 |
What I don't understand is that the rule states if it changes the viewers perspective of the image, I mean the main subject in the image is the girl sitting by the window, is that not how it is judged. Or is it looking at the entire image. In Nuzzer's image with the frame, he removed quite a bit, it changed drastically from the original yet it ribboned, so are we allowed to remove as much as we want, just not add anything? I am really unclear of the rules here, it seems as if they always change. And if a photographer like some here don't understand the rules, how is anyone suppost to. Please make clear, DQ's are the enemy.
Thanks
Edit spelling....
Message edited by author 2007-03-28 09:14:28. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 09:15:06 AM · #39 |
Hi Fritz and Ben,
although I'm sorry for the DQ, my intention was actually to clarify, since I think that even in Heida shots (or some other examples), the circular bright cloud over the subject head can be considered a main feature in the picture that attracts the voters and viewers attention to believe that the sky is opening over the subject.
I've now read Konador reply and that could mean that the same shot, today, with current rules, would have been considered as introducing features. I understand.
Sorry if I went into this "dangerous ground"... at the end it's a game and we're all in a playground, but I was so happy to have my preferred subject doing so well in a challenge...
Thank you.
Originally posted by kirbic:
Hi Silvestro,
Sorry about the DQ; we never want to DQ someone, especially when it's clear that it's just a rules misinterpretation. Let me try and clarify the "features" rule a little. We did consider the creation of the light beams to be creation of a feature that was not present in the original. The Advanced Rules allow selective darkening or lightening as long as it doesn't create recognizable features in the photo. In this case, the viewer is led to believe that the light beams were present, when in fact they were not. That's different than highlighting an area of a photo with a vignette or similar device, and different from darkening or lightening a specific pre-existing object. While this difference can seem subtle, and there are grey areas, this rule seems to be the best way to allow selective changes without allowing wholesale creation of objects. |
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 11:30:49 AM · #40 |
I'll ring in and support the DQ. My description of the photo changes considerably from the original to the edited version. Specifically, the edited version has a dreamy feel to it created primarily by the supposed beams of light. You didn't merely "highlight and darken," you essentially painted in light beams.
That said, outside of advanced DPC rules, it's a terrific shot and one to be proud of. You now have a great technique to use in expert editing challenges, too!
My question to the SC is whether the blackened background also is a source of concern. SandyP lost a ribbon for doing that. And when I asked about a shot that was mostly, but not purely, a silhouette, I was told that going pure black would be a DQ offense.
Since then, I've seen other people blacken a background.
Please clarify, or is it always a judgement call?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 11:59:59 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
You didn't merely "highlight and darken," you essentially painted in light beams. |
So many other images use dodge & burn with great benefit to the image. Is it because the area has not only been lightened ... but turned into what appear to be "parallel beams of window light"? What if the beams hadn't been "stroked" and that the entire area was merely "lighter" because of the editing? Would it then have been legal? (this is meant more for SC than you, but it makes me wonder)
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 12:08:18 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Is it because the area has not only been lightened ... but turned into what appear to be "parallel beams of window light"? What if the beams hadn't been "stroked" and that the entire area was merely "lighter" because of the editing? Would it then have been legal? |
Yes, that would have been legal. The "beams" were considered objects that didn't exist in the original, but changing the value of existing areas is fine. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 12:08:53 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by srugolo:
...I've now read Konador reply and that could mean that the same shot, today, with current rules, would have been considered as introducing features. I understand. |
First off, bummer about the DQ. Btw, beautifully composed and a great capture.
Be it for me to suggest, but you may still be a bit unclear(Or I am) about the rules. Heida's image would not be DQed even under the current advanced rules.
It revolves around the question of what the term "new feature" really means. Clearly, if something did not exist in the original and is added in post processing then it did not previously exist so is a "new feature" subject to DQ.
In Heida's image the clouds existed in the original and she used the photographic technique of dodge and burn to HIGHLIGHT the clouds to give the appearance of a halo. Since the clouds already existed in the original image this is NOT considered a "new feature" in DPC photographic terms.
Here is something perhaps even more remarkable in my opinion - you can make any color change in any way you want. For example, say you enter a Purple challenge and take a picture that has no purple in it, but has really great red tones. With hue changes you can turn the red tones into purple for no other reason than to meet the challenge and that is perfectly acceptable. That is not considered a "new feature".
In DPC terms color, brightness, etc. are considered attributes of an object and you can mess with attributes to existing objects as much as you want.
Yours was an honest misinterpretation.
Message edited by author 2007-03-28 12:10:34.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 12:18:23 PM · #44 |
Dayam ... I am still not clear on this ? ... what was against the advanced editing rules on this image? ... I don't wanna get DQ'd because I don't understand what the problem is ... Greetmir@yahoo.com if you don't wanna babble in public ...
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 12:20:56 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Greetmir:
Dayam ... I am still not clear on this ? ... what was against the advanced editing rules on this image? ... I don't wanna get DQ'd because I don't understand what the problem is ... Greetmir@yahoo.com if you don't wanna babble in public ... |
There are no beams of light below the window in the original. He created them in the final.
By the way, I meant to say that I'm not accusing the photographer of deliberately cheating. I totally believe it was an honest mistake.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 12:24:25 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Greetmir:
Dayam ... I am still not clear on this ? ... what was against the advanced editing rules on this image? ... I don't wanna get DQ'd because I don't understand what the problem is ... Greetmir@yahoo.com if you don't wanna babble in public ... |
If you have some specific edits on an image in mind, send the SC a ticket with a resized original and the proposed edited image and we'll try to help you out. If this is a general question you're asking, perhaps you can tell us what exactly you don't understand after reading the whole of this thread? |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 12:26:15 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by frisca:
perhaps you can tell us what exactly you don't understand after reading the whole of this thread? |
Frisca, can you answer my question above about blackening the rightmost part of the pic? Was that an issue? If not, is it just a case-by-case call as to when a blackened section is too big?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 12:33:42 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
can you answer my question above about blackening the rightmost part of the pic? Was that an issue? If not, is it just a case-by-case call as to when a blackened section is too big? |
You can make existing areas lighter or darker in Advanced as long as you don't obscure anything significant in the process. In this case, there was "nothing" behind the girl, and it was already somewhat dark. If there had been another person, dog, etc. sitting beside her, then making the area black would have been illegal. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 12:48:40 PM · #49 |
well what I don't understand is ... was it the rectangular blasts of light below the window that were created or only the 4 point starburst?
If the original was offered for reviewing here, I missed it and I am sorry if it was ...
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 12:51:04 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Greetmir:
If the original was offered for reviewing here ... |
It was:
 |
|
