| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/30/2008 08:48:54 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's definitely amateurish. I am an amateur studio photog. No amount of setup would have allowed me that large a solid white background without a large paper backdrop. Those are the domain of professionals. |
I’m also an amateur and I have several rolls of seamless paper. It actually costs a lot less than good quality cotton sheets. I guess nobody told me it was only for pros. :)
Anyway, you could have made a plain white background by stretching out the sheet and hitting it with some light. Pretty much the same thing you would have to do with paper. |
Why? If using the paper yielded the better result I would agree with you but it doesn't. The most efficient way is to do it the way the Doc did. It only takes a second to do a levels adjustment and it doesn't cost a dime.
Message edited by author 2008-06-30 20:49:38.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2008 10:36:38 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's definitely amateurish. I am an amateur studio photog. No amount of setup would have allowed me that large a solid white background without a large paper backdrop. Those are the domain of professionals. |
I’m also an amateur and I have several rolls of seamless paper. It actually costs a lot less than good quality cotton sheets. I guess nobody told me it was only for pros. :)
Anyway, you could have made a plain white background by stretching out the sheet and hitting it with some light. Pretty much the same thing you would have to do with paper. |
Why? If using the paper yielded the better result I would agree with you but it doesn't. The most efficient way is to do it the way the Doc did. It only takes a second to do a levels adjustment and it doesn't cost a dime. |
Why? I suppose because it's photography. You can use Photoshop to draw whatever you can dream up, but the result will be a drawing, not a photograph.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2008 10:40:02 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's definitely amateurish. I am an amateur studio photog. No amount of setup would have allowed me that large a solid white background without a large paper backdrop. Those are the domain of professionals. |
I’m also an amateur and I have several rolls of seamless paper. It actually costs a lot less than good quality cotton sheets. I guess nobody told me it was only for pros. :)
Anyway, you could have made a plain white background by stretching out the sheet and hitting it with some light. Pretty much the same thing you would have to do with paper. |
Why? If using the paper yielded the better result I would agree with you but it doesn't. The most efficient way is to do it the way the Doc did. It only takes a second to do a levels adjustment and it doesn't cost a dime. |
Why? I suppose because it's photography. You can use Photoshop to draw whatever you can dream up, but the result will be a drawing, not a photograph. |
You equate levels adjustments with DRAWING? |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 02:45:26 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by egamble:
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's definitely amateurish. I am an amateur studio photog. No amount of setup would have allowed me that large a solid white background without a large paper backdrop. Those are the domain of professionals. |
I’m also an amateur and I have several rolls of seamless paper. It actually costs a lot less than good quality cotton sheets. I guess nobody told me it was only for pros. :)
Anyway, you could have made a plain white background by stretching out the sheet and hitting it with some light. Pretty much the same thing you would have to do with paper. |
Why? If using the paper yielded the better result I would agree with you but it doesn't. The most efficient way is to do it the way the Doc did. It only takes a second to do a levels adjustment and it doesn't cost a dime. |
Why? I suppose because it's photography. You can use Photoshop to draw whatever you can dream up, but the result will be a drawing, not a photograph. |
You equate levels adjustments with DRAWING? |
Why not? If the levels adjustment completely wipes out a selected area, then it's no different from filling the selected area with white. The only difference is the tool that was used. You can argue semantics until hell freezes over, but the result will still be the same. The area will still be filled with white. How would that not be drawing?
Here’s a little “photo” that I just created in Photoshop. I made a blank 640 x 480 pixel image, filled it entirely with black, then created the graphic image using only selections and levels adjustments. Wouldn’t you call this a drawing?
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 02:48:58 AM · #55 |
| Of course that would be a drawing. It didn't even have one small bit that was even remotely part of a photograph. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 03:13:48 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Why not? If the levels adjustment completely wipes out a selected area, then it's no different from filling the selected area with white. The only difference is the tool that was used. You can argue semantics until hell freezes over, but the result will still be the same. The area will still be filled with white. How would that not be drawing?
Here’s a little “photo” that I just created in Photoshop. I made a blank 640 x 480 pixel image, filled it entirely with black, then created the graphic image using only selections and levels adjustments. Wouldn’t you call this a drawing?
|
What is the difference between making the background white...using ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING and an ARTIFICIAL set up....and using level adjustments to make your background whiter?
I stil don't understand. You aren't really ever shooting pure...unless you are shooting without any on camera filters...and no PP. If messing with the environment in one way is considered 'cheap' why is manipulating the environment in another way considered 'pure'?
Of course, you can argue that setting up the environment is setting up a shot you have in your head....but the same can be said for changing things later in PP. Sometimes..I take shots knowing that it won't look too hot straight out of the camera...but will look really great after some PP. I don't see the difference. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 04:01:07 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Of course that would be a drawing. It didn't even have one small bit that was even remotely part of a photograph. |
Are you sure? How do you know that I didn't simply photograph a black and white drawing? I did draw it, just as I said, but I assure you that I could easily create the exact same image by photographing an existing drawing. What's the difference? Only one would be a photo.
Message edited by author 2008-07-01 04:04:59.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 04:03:31 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by egamble:
What is the difference between making the background white...using ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING and an ARTIFICIAL set up....and using level adjustments to make your background whiter?
I stil don't understand. You aren't really ever shooting pure...unless you are shooting without any on camera filters...and no PP. If messing with the environment in one way is considered 'cheap' why is manipulating the environment in another way considered 'pure'?
Of course, you can argue that setting up the environment is setting up a shot you have in your head....but the same can be said for changing things later in PP. Sometimes..I take shots knowing that it won't look too hot straight out of the camera...but will look really great after some PP. I don't see the difference. |
You asked me if I equate levels adjustments with drawing (actually you said DRAWING). I just showed you how a levels adjustment can be used to draw in an image. I even created an entire image using only selections and levels adjustments to prove the point. Now you are asking a totally different question. How is drawing a background different from photographing one? The answer to that should be obvious. One is done with photography, and the other with software. If I started with a blank Photoshop document and then manually edited every single pixel to create a realistic scene of a beach at sunset, would I be creating a photograph or a drawing? What if I start with a photo and then draw over half of it?
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 04:46:24 AM · #59 |
The essential problem is that  Mick is a being of infinitely superior intellect and achievement, whose very meditations on the Art, sorry, ART of whatever the superior being does, the grovelling multitude of dpc are not fit to contemplate, so innocent and simple they are with delusions of digital manipulation of images recorded as electronic information through light sensitive devices. Also his sentences are too long.
Less innocent and more complex denizens of the place left some time ago through lack of popcorn.
Message edited by author 2008-07-01 04:46:38. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 04:54:14 AM · #60 |
ALL YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY ARE BELONG TO MICK  and some for raish: |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 09:28:30 AM · #61 |
| Dr. Achoo, I thought your cookie/crime entry was clever and met the theme in a gentle but totally legitimate (non-shoehorn) way. However, I'm shocked at the amount of pp allowed, and that's without even considering the little white sign. I'm going to bookmark this thread and may refer back to it as a guideline for the future. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 09:43:40 AM · #62 |
| OMIGOSH! The very first muslin background ever used on DPC with cloned out wrinkles! Cover your children's eyes! Shield your monitor from this atrocity! After all, it's not like someone reduced a photograph to an illustrated mockery of the art by cloning out some faint jet contrails in an otherwise clear sky. Oh, wait... it is. Just like dozens of other muslin backgrounds on DPC. Must be a slow news day. :-/ |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 09:48:48 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
OMIGOSH! The very first muslin background ever used on DPC with cloned out wrinkles! Cover your children's eyes! Shield your monitor from this atrocity! After all, it's not like someone reduced a photograph to an illustrated mockery of the art by cloning out some faint jet contrails in an otherwise clear sky. Oh, wait... it is. Just like dozens of other muslin backgrounds on DPC. Must be a slow news day. :-/ |
I think the problem here is how MUCH is cloned out. My own blue ribbon winner has SLIGHT cloning to remove wrinkles, but after seeing this i'm not even going to attempt to straighten a backdrop again. Why even bother washing the white one if it gets dirty? why bother buying a white one when color changes have always been allowed? |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 10:03:20 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
I think the problem here is how MUCH is cloned out. |
All molehills, no mountains. It started and finished with an empty white background. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 10:13:18 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
OMIGOSH! etc. |
Shannon, your sarcasm is amusing, but it doesn't change the fact that this example of what is allowed is a revelation to some of us.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 10:18:00 AM · #66 |
| Given that muslin backgrounds have been edited like this since the DPC Stone Age, and that some of the people feigning shock have removed even more detailed backgrounds, I'll stick with the sarcasm, thanks. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 10:19:07 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by scalvert:
OMIGOSH! etc. |
Shannon, your sarcasm is amusing, but it doesn't change the fact that this example of what is allowed is a revelation to some of us. |
Ditto. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 10:22:38 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
OMIGOSH! The very first muslin background ever used on DPC with cloned out wrinkles! Cover your children's eyes! Shield your monitor from this atrocity! After all, it's not like someone reduced a photograph to an illustrated mockery of the art by cloning out some faint jet contrails in an otherwise clear sky. Oh, wait... it is. Just like dozens of other muslin backgrounds on DPC. Must be a slow news day. :-/ |
Sorry Shannon, but I don't care much for your mocking attitude regarding this issue - everyone here has expressed what I think is legitimate surprise at what extent of editing had been allowed. You say it's "just" a muslin background - is it the fact that it's a sheet, and not say, a row of kitchen cabinets, that makes this ok for you? I was under the impression that removal of major elements in a photo to an extent that it alters one's typical description of the image was not allowed and I do consider that sheet to constitute a major element - before, it is a picture of kids in front of a sheet, after, it is a picture of kids in front of blinding white space, not in any way identifiable as the background it was before. When I think of all the shots I have not entered because I thought the editing was disallowed, even in Advanced, for this very point (using levels or some cloning to make the background more uniform)...
Not trying to say that such editing is "not photography" or any of that (I do horrible Photoshop-y things to my images all the time), but that such editing was ok for DPC submission guidelines, is the concern.
I'm surprised, is all, and so apparently are a good number of other people. You should respect that and not make a mockery of us.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 10:26:49 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
I think the problem here is how MUCH is cloned out. |
All molehills, no mountains. It started and finished with an empty white background. |
And when does said molehill become a mountain? THAT is the question.
You say its a 'white' backdrop, but it looks kinda grey to me. Are we allowed to turn a black backdrop white? or vice versa? |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 10:27:07 AM · #70 |
I once cloned a thin guide wire and was horribly worried that not only could everyone tell I'd cloned it, but that it was a "major element". If I can find the original, I'll edit this to show what I'm talking about. I do think the vast majority of us are far more conservative when it comes to cloning or editing things into oblivion than the masters.
 
Message edited by author 2008-07-01 10:34:26. |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 10:27:34 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... Must be a slow news day. :-/ |
I agree. :-)
A white bg just got a little whiter...no big deal, and not that difficult to do.
Ummm...what was this thread originally about? |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 10:33:22 AM · #72 |
(full disclosure: i did not vote in the challenge or in the validation of DrAchoo's image in question.)
for me, a validation issue such as this one comes down to this portion of the advanced rules (emphasis mine):
Originally posted by advanced rules:
(You may not) use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken. |
simply put, the removal of the background didn't affect my overall description of the shot. personally, i have far more issues with removing the sign in front of the tray. this is just one person's opinion.
FWIW, the "major elements" clause was tossed out in November 2006 because of discussions just like this one. instead of debating if the background was a major element or not for every single image (which often resulted in acrimonious discussions and inconsistent DQs), we decided to step back and look at the image as a whole, which is how it should be.
had this photograph been taken in a kitchen, with cabinets and a sink and etc. behind it and turned into the final submission, it would have been disqualified without a doubt. not because the background was a major element, but because the original shot of "two kids in a kitchen" would have been changed into "two kids looking at cookies." the entire context of the shot would have been changed.
in this instance, however, the context of the shot remains the same from start to finish.
honestly, i think it's a much more simple (and much more fair) means of evaluating images. (and not just 'cause i wrote that rule...haha). |
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:00:52 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
I think the problem here is how MUCH is cloned out. |
All molehills, no mountains. It started and finished with an empty white background. |
And when does said molehill become a mountain? THAT is the question.
You say its a 'white' backdrop, but it looks kinda grey to me. Are we allowed to turn a black backdrop white? or vice versa? |
Of course. Color changes are allowed as is the removal/addition of color, there's a specific exception for it in the rules (i.e. color isn't bound to the same restrictions like other aspects are). It can be done in basic (i.e. invert or curves applied to entire image) not to mention in advance. I think the problem is people try to analyze what the spirit of the rules mean (i.e. read between the lines) and then apply it to everything. Instead you should just take each rule and accept it at face value as it was intended.
Message edited by author 2008-07-01 11:14:01.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:18:33 AM · #74 |
People keep using "clone", but the truth, like mentioned by some, is that 90% of the wrinkles etc were removed by simply using a levels adjustment layer. It's not like I painstakingly cloned out everything. That would have been impossible as there would be no pure white source material to use in the first place.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2008 11:36:37 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by krnodil:
Sorry Shannon, but I don't care much for your mocking attitude regarding this issue... |
See my first posts then. I do try to be polite, but I sometimes get annoyed by the nature of the replies. I dedicate the mighty wet noodle of sarcasm to those who have over-dramatized the issue. Cloning out wrinkles in Advanced is as common as cloning out power lines and stray hairs, yet despite several explanations, you'd think from subsequent posts that the entire entry was drawn with a paint brush. Like Muckpond and some others, the biggest concern for me was the sign. The background was a non-issue to me.
Originally posted by krnodil:
..it is a picture of kids in front of blinding white space, not in any way identifiable as the background it was before. |
If the sheet had been perfectly flat and evenly lit, you wouldn't know if it was a backdrop, white wall, cloudy sky or a giant soft box. They're all blank white nothings. This one was essentially blank, too, but had some minor imperfections, and cloning out imperfections in Advanced is nothing new. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/30/2024 03:15:44 PM EDT.
and some for raish: 
