| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/29/2007 09:59:55 PM · #1 |
Would taking a lightbulb and dodging it to make it look like it's glowing be legal if it isn't actually glowing if the background is perfectly black?
:)
thanks
Message edited by author 2007-09-29 22:03:05. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:08:12 PM · #2 |
| I think not. It would change a typical viewers description of the photo. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:08:40 PM · #3 |
| btw...pretty cool what you did with the lightbulb. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:20:31 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
btw...pretty cool what you did with the lightbulb. |
What Joey did with the lightbulb :P
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:27:36 PM · #5 |
| yeah joey lawrence is amazing |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:35:20 PM · #6 |
Why wouldn't that be legal? You're just manipulating the pixels that already exist, rather than adding new ones.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:36:51 PM · #7 |
| i think im going to run my image by the site council in a pm |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:39:35 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by PhilipDyer:
Why wouldn't that be legal? You're just manipulating the pixels that already exist, rather than adding new ones. |
To me it looks like a created lighting effect, which would make it illegal. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:41:48 PM · #9 |
| Actually, If I remember correctly from his DVD, it's done primarily with the dodge tool. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 10:58:16 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by lovethelight:
i think im going to run my image by the site council in a pm |
when you get a response, please post it here!!!
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:07:10 PM · #11 |
IMO, legal... my description of the photo would be "girl holding light bulb".
You've added nothing to the photo that wasn't there.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:09:57 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
IMO, legal... my description of the photo would be "girl holding light bulb".
You've added nothing to the photo that wasn't there. |
In one the light bulb is obviously just there as an item, in the other it's magically turned on while in her hand?
I'd say it's adding something that wasn't there, and would change a typical viewers description of the photo. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:14:22 PM · #13 |
I said that about 90% of the Impressionism images. (being illegal) :-)
We see how well my opinion of that stood up too. LOL
And from what I was told is that no pixels were added or moved. Deem this photo illegal and my opinion was overly correct. In other words, that rule was defanged by Impressionism.
Message edited by author 2007-09-29 23:28:32.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:26:54 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
btw...pretty cool what you did with the lightbulb. |
What Joey did with the lightbulb :P |
Sorry Joey, didn't know it was yours. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:35:23 PM · #15 |
| I remember there being a photo which was DQed because the dodge tool was used to create streaks of light coming in through a window. It was deemed as an added feature. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:36:12 PM · #16 |
The light is a created feature. Using legal tools to create a feature is not legal in advanced.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:40:14 PM · #17 |
What if you just dogded the bulb itself? without creating a halo of light around it? like if in a bw photo the bulb was gray and you just brightened it so that it was almost white.....
yay debates |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:48:31 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by lovethelight:
....
yay debates |
I reckon, how soon will someone post the popcorn gif? ;)
I'm quite curious to find out what the SC team has to say. I'm going back and forth between nay and yay. Leaning more towards nay, that it won't pass for advanced. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:50:04 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Techo:
I remember there being a photo which was DQed because the dodge tool was used to create streaks of light coming in through a window. It was deemed as an added feature. |
I remember that shot, but I can't remember the challenge. Would be a good example of what's being discussed here I think.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2007 11:52:54 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
The light is a created feature. Using legal tools to create a feature is not legal in advanced. |
According to SC after Impressionism pixels had to be added, removed, or moved...
|
|
|
|
09/30/2007 12:11:47 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Techo:
I remember there being a photo which was DQed because the dodge tool was used to create streaks of light coming in through a window. It was deemed as an added feature. |
I remember that shot, but I can't remember the challenge. Would be a good example of what's being discussed here I think. |
That's the one I was thinking of, but I can't seem to find it. |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 12:21:39 AM · #22 |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 12:22:46 AM · #23 |
| Thank you!!! I had just given up... :D |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 12:24:57 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Techo:
I remember there being a photo which was DQed because the dodge tool was used to create streaks of light coming in through a window. It was deemed as an added feature. |
I remember that shot, but I can't remember the challenge. Would be a good example of what's being discussed here I think. |
No that example isn't the same. That one created new shapes that didn't exist. It was real easy to DQ it. |
|
|
|
09/30/2007 12:26:26 AM · #25 |
There was also another shot. One that had a light beaming down on a tree. Can't remember who shot it though.
Message edited by author 2007-09-30 00:27:11. |
|
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: 08/14/2025 12:29:31 PM EDT.
