| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2008 12:57:47 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The picture that really got people in a huff was this one:
How are these white flecks (which weren't in the original) different from Structor's created stars? I asked this specific question in that thread and was never answered. Perhaps had someone done that Structor would not be looking at a DQ. I knew that impressionism challenge would eventually bite SC in the butt. |
Do those white flecks change the typical viewer's description? And perhaps that's the dividing line here, maybe SC can chime in.
This isn't the first time created stars were DQ'd, so there is a precedent. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 12:59:27 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
If you made your noise stars, wouldn't you change the typical viewer's description? |
Maybe. What if I had 3 stars and wanted 30? Would the typical viewer's description change then? (Night scene with stars.) |
Now that's a tough call, but I would think so. A few stars is a few stars, but 30 is a field of stars. But I see your point - what if you had 30 and just added a few more? |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 01:06:37 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
If you made your noise stars, wouldn't you change the typical viewer's description? |
Maybe. What if I had 3 stars and wanted 30? Would the typical viewer's description change then? (Night scene with stars.) |
Now that's a tough call, but I would think so. A few stars is a few stars, but 30 is a field of stars. But I see your point - what if you had 30 and just added a few more? |
I created the stars AND the planet using mothing but PS filters. This was for an Expert editing challenge, I asked for a pre-validation, they said the planet wouldn't be allowed, but never mentioned the stars.
Anyone want to guess who that is in the hat? ;-) |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 01:07:28 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That didn't ribbon. :) It came in 6th and thus was never validated. However, I promise stars were there (albeit many were much fainter then they appear after processing). |
Jejejeâ„¢... But...but...it's so BLUE! You can understand my confusion :-) Anyway, I was just wondering if that image, in conjunction with your later discussion (in another context) of creating stars out of noise, had been a factor... Apparently not, based on Structor's statement in this thread.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 01:09:24 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That didn't ribbon. :) It came in 6th and thus was never validated. However, I promise stars were there (albeit many were much fainter then they appear after processing). |
Jejejeâ„¢... But...but...it's so BLUE! You can understand my confusion :-) Anyway, I was just wondering if that image, in conjunction with your later discussion (in another context) of creating stars out of noise, had been a factor... Apparently not, based on Structor's statement in this thread.
R. |
Believe me, it was a factor in why I started asking questions in this thread... :)
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 01:50:20 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How are these white flecks (which weren't in the original) different from Structor's created stars? |
The short answer: they're not stars.
Longer answer: they modify the surface appearance of objects already present, but they're not objects unto themselves. I think we might have been a little more lenient in that challenge, but filters are allowed. My standard benchmark is considering whether anything visually prominent was obscured in editing or whether any describable objects (stars, rainbows, clouds, etc.) were added. I see people here debating whether a typical viewer's description would change, but that only applies to moving, removing or duplicating things (the impressionism textures and Structor's stars weren't any of those). The prohibition on ADDING things is covered by this clause: "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)." Those stars didn't exist at all in the originals, and while we might reasonably say that brushstrokes were added in the Impressionism shot, I consider those a modification of the existing surface, not new objects. It's like using a noise filter... we could just as reasonably say they're added "specks," but are those really new objects?
To answer your earlier question about dodging noise to look like stars, I'd personally vote DQ if no stars we visible in the capture and you were just using the noise as an excuse to get around the rules. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 01:59:30 PM · #57 |
Regarding the Impressionism challenge: I can't find the reference (search doesn't work in IE for Windows Mobile), but we are on record that the we took a more permissive approach on textures in the Impressionism challenge than we did, or would, on others. Perhaps we should retroactively tag that challenge with an extra rules flag to note that, but in any case, it doesn't matter for two reasons. First, we have no indication any photo from that challenge was used as a basis for the editing decisions in those photo. Second, and most importantly, stars aren't textures. They're stars.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 02:15:09 PM · #58 |
Thanks for being straightforward. There of course remains gray, but it does not serve the site, I believe, to hash out the subtlest nuance.
I will not undertake star dodging as I'm guessing it will be DQ'd. I will, however, feel justified in really dodging a star that exists. In my shot, as I said in the comments, I had the benefit of using the small startrail to figure out what was a star and what was noise, but it wasn't always easy.
Message edited by author 2008-01-25 14:15:30.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 02:21:40 PM · #59 |
while i still believe the lady should have been dq'd ... this is an excellent answer, Shannon.
plus ... now finishing 10th ... i just legally gained a star where there wasn't one present ... cool
:)
Originally posted by scalvert:
Longer answer: they modify the surface appearance of objects already present, but they're not objects unto themselves. I think we might have been a little more lenient in that challenge, but filters are allowed. My standard benchmark is considering whether anything visually prominent was obscured in editing or whether any describable objects (stars, rainbows, clouds, etc.) were added. I see people here debating whether a typical viewer's description would change, but that only applies to moving, removing or duplicating things (the impressionism textures and Structor's stars weren't any of those). The prohibition on ADDING things is covered by this clause: "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)." Those stars didn't exist at all in the originals, and while we might reasonably say that brushstrokes were added in the Impressionism shot, I consider those a modification of the existing surface, not new objects. It's like using a noise filter... we could just as reasonably say they're added "specks," but are those really new objects? |
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 02:22:36 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by hopper:
now finishing 10th ... i just legally gained a star where there wasn't one present ... |
Requesting validation... ;-P |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 02:36:11 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by hopper:
plus ... now finishing 10th ... i just legally gained a star where there wasn't one present ... cool
|
But dijda dodge it? ;) And congrats! And for that matter, congrats to yanko, who now has a new honorable mention (without being 7.3, which he said he usually needs)!
FWIW, I dodged the stars in this shot a LOT. To be more accurate, I sharpened 'em, which is a great method for bringing out points of light like stars. As Doc said, though, it's a bit tricky in a noisy image to figure out what was really a star to begin with.
|
|
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: 08/06/2025 05:00:07 AM EDT.
