| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/14/2008 02:44:48 PM · #1 |
There have been times I've considered burning the edges and corners to create a 'vignette' look but have worried about running into trouble with the rules; specifically, adding an element. This is the part of the 'Advanced' editing ruleset I worry about: "You may not...use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s)."
I understand there are ways to generate a 'vignette' at the time of capturing the exposure in place of using PP techniques.
Seems the question of adding vignettes has been asked before but a firm answer to how much is legal and how much isn't, has not been clearly answered (of course I could have missed it).
A couple of recent examples. I like the way these came out and wouldn't mind trying this, but I guess I'm too conservative to push the limits.
 , 
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 03:19:30 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Seems the question of adding vignettes has been asked before but a firm answer to how much is legal and how much isn't, has not been clearly answered (of course I could have missed it). |
A firm answer on this matter is not possible, because it depends on the subjective opinions on a specific image; there's no objective measurements we could come up with (percentage/pixels covered, opacity value, etc.) which could fairly cover all submissions. Exactly the same 'vignette' could be applied to different images and judged OK for one and not the other, dependent on the subject matter and how the 'vignette' interacts with the image.
The easiest way to get you question answered more realistically is to submit a ticket to the SC with a side-by-side comparison of the before/after versions. While not a true "pre-validation" (since it's possible for you to further edit the image before submitting it), I don't think I can remember any cases where we gave an informal opinion that a shot was OK and then later DQd the shot -- if it's happened, it's an extremely rare occurrence. I have used this process myself, and actually was told that my proposed edit would not pass muster, so I submitted the less-edited one. I would trust that process with future submissions.
I've added vignettes a few times myself, and I think I barely got by on one or two of them (whew!). My own criteria would be something like:
-clearly a natural-looking 'vignette' effect
-cannot create a distinct shape which becomes part of the composition, e.g. something which looks like a spotlight on the subject
-does not serve to completely obscure undesirable elements in the composition, which it would otherwise be illegal to remove, i.e. the "minor imperfections" removal rule applies whether the removal is accomplished with a 'vignette' or the clone-tool.
Hope that helps :-) |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 03:22:04 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hope that helps :-) |
Yes, it does. Thank you. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 03:50:44 PM · #4 |
I'd be interested to hear the General's opinion on the legality of your two examples based on what he said...
Originally posted by glad2badad:
, |
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 03:54:29 PM · #5 |
DQ'd for vignetting (if I remember correctly).
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 03:56:05 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by cryingdragon:
DQ'd for vignetting (if I remember correctly). |
...and that's not even a 'vignette'. Vignettes are in the foreground.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 03:56:55 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'd be interested to hear the General's opinion on the legality of your two examples based on what he said... |
Considering I haven't actually seen the "originals" for comparison, I'd almost certainly vote to validate those two. But also be aware that I've been in the minority on quite a few votes. :-( |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 03:57:52 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'd be interested to hear the General's opinion on the legality of your two examples based on what he said... |
Considering I haven't actually seen the "originals" for comparison, I'd almost certainly vote to validate those two. But also be aware that I've been in the minority on quite a few votes. :-( |
I thought you outranked all the other SC though... ;-) |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 04:01:16 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I thought you outranked all the other SC though... ;-) |
Doen't matter -- our structure is a parliamentary dictatorship, not a military junta ... |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 04:24:45 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I thought you outranked all the other SC though... ;-) |
since when does age determine rank? :P |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 04:30:34 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I thought you outranked all the other SC though... ;-) |
since when does age determine rank? :P |
It's called "seniority" and it's a vanishing thing...
R.
|
|
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: 08/24/2025 06:05:11 PM EDT.
