| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/12/2010 08:05:57 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
- That rectangle of color was created, and it it's obviously added in post (legal)
|
I disagree with the "legal" part. Again, this image
was dq'ed for that exact reason. it was an obviously added shape of a rainbow. I don't see how "adding" the bruises is different.
Joe |
|
|
|
01/12/2010 09:14:18 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by ASTONishing:
I think creating bruises is venturing out into spot editing territory. when you "create" bruises you are creating something/object that wasn't there. It would be the same as creating a shadow on a table to give the illusion that something was sitting there. You would have to argue that the light was there you were just making it darker.....darker with a predetermined shape maybe =)
When you use a burn tool to darken clouds, you aren't creating little dark doggies, bears, or unicorn clouds. For the most part you are darkening the whole sky evenly to draw less of the eye.
If using the dodge tool to create rays of light that were not there to begin with is illegal, then using a burn tool to create bruises that were not there should be as well. |
Bugger!! I have submitted the original shot for review and have my toes and fingers crossed!!
I took another shot last night for the Signature Style Challenge and added lens flare to the shot, as it is just the perfect shot to use the lens flare filter. To double check if such a filter is allowed, I re-read the Advanced Editing Rules, and it clearly states it is not. Crystal; lens flare is not allowed -- darn, but that is very clear, so I won't submitting that :(
In re-reading the rules however, I started to worry about the line that says may not create any new elements that were not originally there. Obviously, most of the bruises were not there bar a few on the shoulders. I used the dodge tool to darken certain parts of the skin, and to give the muscle more definition, then colour burn to give a more injured look.
As JulietNN says, dodging and burning clouds is allowed to make them look more dramatic, or to turn fluffy white clouds into thunderstorm clouds. So I also imagine dodging and burning muscles to make someone look more of an athlete than they are is also allowed. It could be argued the muscles are there, just they need to be brought out Yet i can also see how ti_evom's point also carries water. But is whitening bloodshot dull eyes and giving them a sparkle adding something that is not there or significantly changing the original feel of the image? IMHO nothing was actually "added" in the boxer shot -- patches of the existing skin were darkened, and colours were enhanced.
This is very difficult call for the SC to make IMHO. One silver lining to come out of this worry though: I now know the advanced editing rules by heart :)
Malcolm
|
|
|
|
01/12/2010 09:18:11 AM · #28 |
I think it is difficult to call this one. Because in my thinking, if you had just used the burn tool, in theory it would be ok (ie same as burning clouds, bringing our shadows etc). But because you used a colour one and the colour was not there to start with , it could be iffy.
I think this is a difficult one to answer to be honest
But bravo on being such a sport about it ekmai |
|
|
|
01/12/2010 04:38:01 PM · #29 |
| Well, it was dq'd. What a tough call and am glad I don't have to make them. |
|
|
|
01/12/2010 04:45:04 PM · #30 |
| There are some good arguments here in support of the DQ, and I know that everyone wants to play fair and consistently, but... this "illegally altered" photo is probably less doctored than some that are altered "legally." It's a shame. I understand however that the SC has to draw the line somewhere and continue to strive to define it clearly. |
|
|
|
01/12/2010 04:48:29 PM · #31 |
Since my own DQ a little while ago:
I use a rule of thumb that if I manipulate the colour or luminosity of something with the natural boundaries or existing edges within the image it is OK, if I create new edges then it will be classed as a new image area.
Does that make sense to others? |
|
|
|
01/12/2010 05:31:49 PM · #32 |
Definitely bravo for being a good sport about it! Shame about the DQ. And it really is a wonderful picture!
However, I can see the site council's point of view. Without the bruises, it would be a different picture, different mood, different image. Skin existed, yes, but the bruises didn't and they changed the mood/description of the shot.
I would think that you wouldn't be able to change a fluffy white cloud to a thunderhead, however, because it is changing the description of the image... |
|
|
|
01/12/2010 06:16:52 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
Since my own DQ a little while ago:
I use a rule of thumb that if I manipulate the colour or luminosity of something with the natural boundaries or existing edges within the image it is OK, if I create new edges then it will be classed as a new image area.
Does that make sense to others? |
Yeah, now that I look at it. At first glance I didn't get it but I see what you "added". If the crayon would've been up a little more (say, right on the tooth) to hide that part of the lip you would've been cool desaturating the entire left side portion but because you somewhat created a brush stroke above the crayon on the lip - essentially drawing a new feature - you were dq'd. Is that right? |
|
|
|
01/12/2010 06:31:09 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Yeah, now that I look at it. At first glance I didn't get it but I see what you "added". If the crayon would've been up a little more (say, right on the tooth) to hide that part of the lip you would've been cool desaturating the entire left side portion but because you somewhat created a brush stroke above the crayon on the lip - essentially drawing a new feature - you were dq'd. Is that right? |
Yep, that's my take on it - I've not tried to test it again though!
I do know that it was a marginal call but absolutely right in my view. It was a DQ that really helped me learn. |
|
|
|
01/12/2010 10:00:11 PM · #35 |
 ekmai
Sorry about the DQ.
But again , as i said before, Bravo on your sportmanship |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 01:09:01 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
ekmai
Sorry about the DQ.
But again , as i said before, Bravo on your sportmanship |
Thanks all. Life goes on. A DQ is a downer but also motivation to get back that lost red ribbon in another challenge :)
We are all here to learn and improve our ability to take photos. I am much clearer now about what is and what is not permitted. And as the SC say, err on the side of caution. I guess the goal of DPC is to encourage people to strive to make great images in camera and not rely on Photoshop to do the job, which is of course the best way to grow as a photographer.
Good luck in future challenges everyone :)
Mal |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 01:24:20 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
ekmai
Sorry about the DQ.
But again , as i said before, Bravo on your sportmanship |
Also remember that the fact that it didn't quite fit within the rule constraints of this particular contest doesn't mean it wasn't an excellent and well-received photo. |
|
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: 08/03/2025 01:28:32 PM EDT.
