|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2007 05:26:28 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by srugolo:
The problem here is that the result is some recognizable shape. So my learning at the end is: if you use something that turns into any form of geometric shape (circles, rectangles, square, or whatever is a recognizable shape in our culture) it is not legal... |
You know, that will never get written down, but I bet it's the closest thing to the truth there is. |
It's already written down: You may... apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process. |
So, is blurring a background okay since it is "applying effects to all or part of the entry" even if it gives it a sense of DOF? |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 05:28:29 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by kellyrc01:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by srugolo:
The problem here is that the result is some recognizable shape. So my learning at the end is: if you use something that turns into any form of geometric shape (circles, rectangles, square, or whatever is a recognizable shape in our culture) it is not legal... |
You know, that will never get written down, but I bet it's the closest thing to the truth there is. |
It's already written down: You may... apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process. |
So, is blurring a background okay since it is "applying effects to all or part of the entry" even if it gives it a sense of DOF? |
Are you blurring it slightly for subject emphasis or blurring it into utter oblivion?
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 05:29:48 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Originally posted by kellyrc01:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by srugolo:
The problem here is that the result is some recognizable shape. So my learning at the end is: if you use something that turns into any form of geometric shape (circles, rectangles, square, or whatever is a recognizable shape in our culture) it is not legal... |
You know, that will never get written down, but I bet it's the closest thing to the truth there is. |
It's already written down: You may... apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process. |
So, is blurring a background okay since it is "applying effects to all or part of the entry" even if it gives it a sense of DOF? |
Are you blurring it slightly for subject emphasis or blurring it into utter oblivion? |
the background is blurred slightly & the objects in front are clear |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 05:33:02 PM · #79 |
An example where it was legal. The effect is subtle, but impacts the picture greatly.
If your background was already more blurred than the subject I bet you could get away with a lot more.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 06:12:57 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An example where it was legal. The effect is subtle, but impacts the picture greatly.
If your background was already more blurred than the subject I bet you could get away with a lot more. |
According to his notes he didn't blur anything only selectively sharpened presumably the man in the middle. He does "pop" out because of that sharpening but he could have very well stood out without any sharpening and the sharpening only enhanced that effect that was already there. However I have not seen the original so I'm just guessing at that. I think a better example would be your typical landscape shots. It's real easy to use noise reduction to make subjects that have more detail than the background to really stand out because the background turns silky smooth while the subject (people, trees, whatever) remain sharp and detailed. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 06:27:59 PM · #81 |
Not that this is a very DPC-friendly image, but the background was deliberately blurred. As far as I know, this is/was perfectly legal and no one challenged it.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 07:57:02 PM · #82 |
It is a very unfortunate DQ especially since it was a misunderstanding of the rules. A very nice image, original and edited version.
Originally posted by JawnyRico:
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.... |
Jawnyrico...you said you don't understand how the light rays changed the viewers perspective since the main subject was the girl...but if the rays weren't meant to change the viewers perspective then they wouldn't have been added in the first place. The subject is certianly not just the girl the window is a very key element.
As far as the adding or removing things that depends on how and what you are adding or removing. If you clone out dust or (I think) powerlines then you are fine. If you crop out someone standing on the side, you are fine. But if you clone out a person, building, tree etc in the image you are most likly looking at a DQ.
And as far as adding, as Scalvert pointed out, you can't add shapes. You can add light or dark but you have to be careful on the amount of it. If you add so much of either that it removes something (or somethings texture) then really what is the difference between that and cloning it out? It won't fly. Had the OP just added overall darkness to the window I'm sure he would have been fine but since he added "shapes" it was in issue. It's pretty much the same with blur, if you blur the image to the amount of not being able to distinguish the background that was nice and sharp in the original then you are most likly looking at a DQ.
Hope this helps clear things a little more. As someone else mentioned if ever you have a doubt about your editing just message the SC before hand and they will help. Despite some peoples thoughts...they are here to help make this fun for everyone.
edited cause my keyboard can't spell worth a darn ;)
Message edited by author 2007-03-28 20:00:59. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/27/2025 11:22:05 AM  |
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: 06/27/2025 11:22:05 AM EDT.
|
