DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Military Challenge winner....
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 69, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/29/2010 01:59:01 PM · #1
I think so too, all 4 0f these shots.
 11/29/2010 01:57:46 PM · #2
Originally posted by David Ey:
Now that you have taken your 10 back, what is it? :)

hehe - Still a 10 for me :) great shot.
 11/29/2010 01:56:34 PM · #3
Now that you have taken your 10 back, what is it? :)
 11/29/2010 01:27:49 PM · #4
Originally posted by JustFred:
I think Yo-Spiff's entry is legit for basic. However my own entry which came into 4th place and was then DQ'd was a different matter altogether. I cloned out a small little twig which protruded from behind one of the gravestones incorrectly assuming it was allowed in Basic. It's so long ago since I last read the rules that I confused that with what's allowed in advanced. A small minor little matter one might think as it does not change the impact or appearance of the image in any way but yet it fell foul of the rule that in basic the only cloning that may be done is to get rid of hot pixels or sensor dust. Needless to say I was very disappointed to have an image that did so well DQ'd. I mean it's not every day that I get into the top 5. Bummer indeed. Just thought I'd mention it in this thread as no-one except one person actually seems to have noticed that my image was DQ'd.

Ps: Here is the offending twig that did the damage
//d.imagehost.org/0312/Wargrave.jpg

I loved your shot and I scored it a 10 in the challenge (as you see in my comment also). But I didn't notice until now that you cloned the twig out. Strange really, since you actually did a bad job out of the cloning and it's very obvious.
I still love the image though, but now the cloned out area sticks out a like a sore thumb and pokes me in the eye :)
 11/29/2010 12:53:32 PM · #5
I was troubled to be one of the few voices of dissent here. If this were anyone other than Steve's photo, I probably wouldn't have chimed in at all. Steve's an all around good sport, and I value that I can openly (or privately) disagree with him, have an engaging dialogue, and not lose a friend.

Anyway, I looked more closely at this and came to the conclusion that smoke is a funny thing. Simply cropping the image like he did, and converting it to a high contrast black and white, delivers a result with an almost equally intense impact -- one that looks more like the battlefield of the winning image.

My initial reaction was that Steve was deliberately engaging in some sort of trickery (and someone's mention along the way of a special filter biased me). But I see now that it's relatively easy to get from image A to image B using basic editing steps.

This still isn't my approach to editing. If this were my image, I'd have been uneasy enough with the result as it compared to the original to not enter it all. And I'd have been out a ribbon, of course. But really, there's only one critic any of us ever have to please.

Nice work, Steve.
 11/29/2010 09:30:01 AM · #6
I think Yo-Spiff's entry is legit for basic. However my own entry which came into 4th place and was then DQ'd was a different matter altogether. I cloned out a small little twig which protruded from behind one of the gravestones incorrectly assuming it was allowed in Basic. It's so long ago since I last read the rules that I confused that with what's allowed in advanced. A small minor little matter one might think as it does not change the impact or appearance of the image in any way but yet it fell foul of the rule that in basic the only cloning that may be done is to get rid of hot pixels or sensor dust. Needless to say I was very disappointed to have an image that did so well DQ'd. I mean it's not every day that I get into the top 5. Bummer indeed. Just thought I'd mention it in this thread as no-one except one person actually seems to have noticed that my image was DQ'd.

Ps: Here is the offending twig that did the damage
//d.imagehost.org/0312/Wargrave.jpg

Message edited by author 2010-11-29 09:31:06.
 11/28/2010 09:39:51 PM · #7
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Wow. I'm impressed. This is why I don't like to see originals. Takes some of the magic out of it. Definitely became a feature, but this has been done many times..


I couldn't agree with this more.. I thought for sure the image had "fire" off to the side causing the orange glow.. It also looks like there are sparks, which really convinced me there MUST have been fire causing the orange glow. But, in the original, all those elements are absent..
 11/28/2010 09:34:42 PM · #8
Originally posted by David Ey:
I'll be the first to admit...I'm insane....got this way from my old wife.

Yes, old wives are like that. Carry on!
 11/28/2010 09:32:24 PM · #9
I'll be the first to admit...I'm insane....got this way from my old wife.
 11/28/2010 09:27:25 PM · #10
Originally posted by David Ey:
we are not even supposed to vote on an entry if we know who's it is.


This is actually an old wives' tale. =D

SC has stated clearly that we can vote, IF WE VOTE FAIRLY, on any image... even if we know whose it is.

Just sayin'...

Carry on.
 11/28/2010 09:24:04 PM · #11
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
When an entry is being discussed for validation during the challenge, do the SC members involved know whose entry it is?

Yes.


Why?

Because they are mature adults who will make decisions based on the facts, not on personalities. That's why they are Site Council members. And, as a subscribing member, I want them to have ALL the information available, including the image ownership.


So, you think it is important to know WHO's entry they are validating? BS, we are not even supposed to vote on an entry if we know who's it is. It is a simple matter to keep this information secret to everyone until after the results are finalized, and this should be done. Why do you suppose a "mature adult" judge excuses themselves from a case if they know any of the parties?

For the record, I like the entry and I have no opinion on it's validity.

Sigh! Once you get beyond "yourself", you'll realize the SC thinks about the objective merits of an image, w/o regard to the owner. I believe this. (You can believe otherwise, but it will drive you insane.)
 11/28/2010 09:22:21 PM · #12
Originally posted by David Ey:
So, you think it is important to know WHO's entry they are validating? BS, we are not even supposed to vote on an entry if we know who's it is. It is a simple matter to keep this information secret to everyone until after the results are finalized, and this should be done. Why do you suppose a "mature adult" judge excuses themselves from a case if they know any of the parties?

I didn't mean to make an issue over it with my question, I was just curious. Besides, SC has to validate the winners after the challenge, so at that point they know whose it is. Not sure there's much difference.
 11/28/2010 09:17:43 PM · #13
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
When an entry is being discussed for validation during the challenge, do the SC members involved know whose entry it is?

Yes.


Why?

Because they are mature adults who will make decisions based on the facts, not on personalities. That's why they are Site Council members. And, as a subscribing member, I want them to have ALL the information available, including the image ownership.


So, you think it is important to know WHO's entry they are validating? BS, we are not even supposed to vote on an entry if we know who's it is. It is a simple matter to keep this information secret to everyone until after the results are finalized, and this should be done. Why do you suppose a "mature adult" judge excuses themselves from a case if they know any of the parties?

For the record, I like the entry and I have no opinion on it's validity.

Message edited by author 2010-11-28 21:21:40.
 11/28/2010 06:36:29 PM · #14
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Working from Steve's (small) original as posted, I come up with the following in 3 minutes flat; hue/sat, curves, and color balance, each as a normal-mode adjustment layer. So it's all doable legally, albeit this one needs more careful work to approach the quality of the ribbon winner.



R.


Nicely done. I tried and tried and couldn't come close. I didn't think to try playing with the color balance. Like I stated in my first post, I'm trying to learn here and I don't consider myself a newbie when it comes to PPing.

Tim
 11/28/2010 06:34:25 PM · #15
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
When an entry is being discussed for validation during the challenge, do the SC members involved know whose entry it is?

Yes.


Why?

Because they are mature adults who will make decisions based on the facts, not on personalities. That's why they are Site Council members. And, as a subscribing member, I want them to have ALL the information available, including the image ownership.
 11/28/2010 06:30:51 PM · #16
No offense to Steve. I really like him (his online persona) and like his work but I think if he was not a site staple this discussion would be headed in a different direction. IMO the image has been modified beyond the rules of basic. If a filter was applied to the camera first then this would be acceptable. It's one of the great things about basic editing. Make's you think more about your shots before you snap them because you know there are a minimum of ways you will be able to go with it in PP>

Originally posted by BrennanOB:


So the question becomes is this a competition site, or a learning site.


Both. We learn without bending/breaking the rules. People are to competitive in nature. Even if it is only for digital ribbons.


11/28/2010 06:20:13 PM · #17
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
When an entry is being discussed for validation during the challenge, do the SC members involved know whose entry it is?

Yes.


Why?
 11/28/2010 06:11:20 PM · #18
[quote]

Yo_spiff states quite clearly how it was done. To try for yourself download Virtual Photographer photoshop plugin (free) and run the black and white "orangecrush" preset. One click. Done. No messing about with blending modes.

Of course, one could ask how Virtual Photographer actually works underneath - i.e. does it run some sort of overlay blend? [/quote]

That's exactly the point -- If you're not allowed to add layers and blend them, then you could get a program to do it for you and be validated?
 11/28/2010 06:04:59 PM · #19
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
OUCH... MY EYESSSSSSSSUHH!


Jejeje™ I did say it needs more work :-) The point is, you can get from here to there legally; the rest is just details.

R.
 11/28/2010 06:01:18 PM · #20
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...


...


OUCH... MY EYESSSSSSSSUHH!
 11/28/2010 05:59:52 PM · #21
Working from Steve's (small) original as posted, I come up with the following in 3 minutes flat; hue/sat, curves, and color balance, each as a normal-mode adjustment layer. So it's all doable legally, albeit this one needs more careful work to approach the quality of the ribbon winner.



R.
11/28/2010 05:58:32 PM · #22
Excellent image, with dramatic interest. A very worthy Blue Ribbon. Don't sweat the small stuff. Validation once is good enough for me. Would like to see more great "use of light" images, like Y0's.
 11/28/2010 05:47:38 PM · #23
I don't understand the fuss here. As long as I've been around, which is 6 years, it's been legal under basic editing to make any color changes you want as long as you didn't physically select the areas to be affected and as long as you didn't make the color changes on an adjustment layer set to an other-than-normal blending mode. So even IF Tim's right, that there's a "hidden layer" of coding that uses a blending mode to accomplish these changes, it's always been legal.

So people who are saying that this sort of color-shifting of the entire image is illegal are basically arguing to completely rewrite the rules, to change at least 6 years of precedent. And that's ridiculous; if we get to the point where an image is deemed "illegal" because the white balance was changed (and that's what this amounts to, really) then we're at a point where where we have to determine what's "real" for every image we judge, and I don't envy anyone having to sort THAT out LOL.

R.
 11/28/2010 05:44:38 PM · #24
Originally posted by atupdate:
It is possible to do something like this with a hue shift and some contrast and saturation adjustments, and I'm sure there are some other combinations of tools you could legally use in Basic to get this kind of result. Take an image and play with it; it's the best way to learn.


How can you make white and gray smoke orange and yellow with a hue shift? It had to be a colored layer with an blend mode of some sort. Why would it be legal for a PP filter to do that when a person can't do that themselves in PPing? I used an orange layer on the original and it does tranform the smoke into fire but no amount of hue/saturation I tried could make the same change. Any SC care to jump in and explain how they think it was done legally?

Tim

Tim [/quote]

Yo_spiff states quite clearly how it was done. To try for yourself download Virtual Photographer photoshop plugin (free) and run the black and white "orangecrush" preset. One click. Done. No messing about with blending modes.

Of course, one could ask how Virtual Photographer actually works underneath - i.e. does it run some sort of overlay blend?
 11/28/2010 05:37:04 PM · #25
Originally posted by atupdate:
Originally posted by MaryO:
Originally posted by atupdate:
The only question I have is how does any filter in PP do this effect without using a layer with the blend mode set to overlay? Is this possible with a hue shift? If not, how is the action legal in basic?

[Trying to learn here, not get anyone disqualified]

Tim


It is possible to do something like this with a hue shift and some contrast and saturation adjustments, and I'm sure there are some other combinations of tools you could legally use in Basic to get this kind of result. Take an image and play with it; it's the best way to learn.


How can you make white and gray smoke orange and yellow with a hue shift? It had to be a colored layer with an blend mode of some sort. Why would it be legal for a PP filter to do that when a person can't do that themselves in PPing? I used an orange layer on the original and it does tranform the smoke into fire but no amount of hue/saturation I tried could make the same change. Any SC care to jump in and explain how they think it was done legally?

Tim

Tim


(caveat: I use PhotoImpact, but I'm sure this is all similar in Photoshop) If you wanted to, you could adjust the color channels seperately in either Levels or Curves and it would shift the whole image, even the blacks and whites. Perfectly legal. A "colorize" hue shift (or a color balance shift) accomplishes the same thing, but in fewer steps.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 11:30:26 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 04/19/2024 11:30:26 PM EDT.