"Pastels" Results Recalculated - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

09/12/2006 01:48:43 PM · #1

Sorry about the DQ, Sandy. From my perspective, the background wasn't all that detailed or "major" as an object, but removing the wall effectively removed the environment or context of the shot. A basic description of the image thus changed from "a flamingo in a pen or other enclosure" to just "a flamingo," and that makes the background more significant IMO.

FWIW, you've handled the DQ with admirable grace and dignity. Most people don't. ;-)

SandyP

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 USM

09/12/2006 01:17:01 PM · #2

Originally posted by scalvert:

Muur adjusted the entire image with Curves (not just the trees). The result of the curves adjustment alone was very nearly what you see in the entry and would have been legal even in Basic Editing. The only background of any signifigance removed was a small piece of sky in the top left corner. The rest was already essentially black given that exposure.

Sandy's beautiful entry had a stone wall background that was selectively removed from the flamingo. While combining differently-processed versions of the same RAW file is legal in Advanced Editing (I've used it to expand dynamic range), selectively removing the background in this manner is no different than simply painting it black or deleting it.

Thank you for articulating your explanation like this. I feel much better about having my photo dq'd because I thought I was removing something that wasn't a major element when in fact it was, than for using 2 techniques, both of which had been validated on other entries. I promise. . .I really really believed that the background (so little of which showed up anyway because I had cropped it so tight) was not a major element. But I do accept it that I misjudged, and will be much more picky about that in the future.

Still sad, but understanding better now :(

skylen

Nikon D200

09/12/2006 11:53:33 AM · #3

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by skylen:
What if SandyP had NOT done any masking and removed the BG by using the Levels of Curves tool on the entire image? (Suppose that the subject is brighter than the stone wall background.)

If I understand your question correctly, there wouldn't be much of a background to remove. When the Levels or Curves are adjusted for proper exposure, a much darker background could naturally appear black (as in Muur's example dredged up earlier). IMO it would be the same as shooting a nearly black background to begin with.

That makes sense. Thanks.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Google Glass Google Glass

09/12/2006 11:43:44 AM · #4

Please Sandy, have some good come out of it and post the original. Not that we can argue whether SC is right or not, but on these subjective calls, we are in the dark about our own processing unless we see examples of what SC considers illegal.

ambaker

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

09/12/2006 11:43:27 AM · #5

I've seen suggestions to automatically qualify leading photos in each challenge. It seems to me that this would require a lot of emailing back and forth, and there are time constratints.

What about having all entrants submit a more compressed version of the original at the time of entry. Crunch it down to say less than 50K. They can be linked to the entry in the site database, and after each challenge is final, the originals can be mass deleted. This way the council can review photos at their leisure, and major issues can be resolved or DQ'ed much earlier in the process.

Down side is more bandwidth, and more temporary hard drive space taken up.

Just a thought...

09/12/2006 11:42:50 AM · #6

Originally posted by skylen:

What if SandyP had NOT done any masking and removed the BG by using the Levels of Curves tool on the entire image? (Suppose that the subject is brighter than the stone wall background.)

If I understand your question correctly, there wouldn't be much of a background to remove. When the Levels or Curves are adjusted for proper exposure, a much darker background could naturally appear black (as in Muur's example posted earlier). IMO it would be the same as shooting a nearly black background to begin with.

Message edited by author 2006-09-12 13:37:05.

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

09/12/2006 11:34:17 AM · #7

Originally posted by skylen:

Would the disappearance of the stone wall still DQ the image?

I believe the answer is YES. No matter HOW you disappear it in PP, it is still a major element.

skylen

Nikon D200

09/12/2006 11:31:47 AM · #8

What I really want to know is: What if SandyP had NOT done any masking and removed the BG by using the Levels of Curves tool on the entire image? (Suppose that the subject is brighter than the stone wall background.)

Would the disappearance of the stone wall still DQ the image?

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/12/2006 11:30:48 AM · #9

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...if this were "legal" there would be no need to pay any attention whatsoever to our backgrounds when shooting for DPC ...

AMEN and thank you, SC!

Sandy, I am sorry for YOU, you obviously didn't set out to cheat, you simply misjudged the situation. I'm very sad that you lost that ribbon :-(

However, I am thankful for this DQ for the sake of DPC and photography.

Having to work around such restrictions (e.g. avoiding unwanted backgrounds) BEFORE we even take the photograph forces us to think and plan ahead, rather than relying on PS magic.
We are much better off for it in the long run.

kenskid

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/12/2006 11:29:08 AM · #10

Many many many shots in challenges would benefit from a totally black background. This is a fair DQ on an otherwise very nice bird!

I'd still like to see the original to see how much darkening was done. However, If it was very dark to begin with and she just darkened it a little to get her current effect, I'm sure we'll all have another discussion as to if it should be a DQ.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

09/12/2006 11:13:47 AM · #11

Originally posted by SandyP:

I'm so surprised. And sad. I had used the technique of increasing the shadows to darken the background before, so since I had notice a site council member doing processing the RAW file twice, I assumed it was okay.

I accept the decision sadly. Thanks everyone anyway for the encouragement and comments on my pictire.

This is one of the best examples of a member handling a DQ that I've seen. Although the photo in question was not to my tastes (and I like others by you more SandyP). I raise a toast to SandyP for showing much humility and dignity in her handling of the result.

That said....it was voted 3rd place. And suffered and incidental DQ. There is no shame in such a placing. And much honor in how you responded. *tips his hat*

alfresco

09/12/2006 11:07:27 AM · #12

I wasn't intentionally being obtuse, I just didn't understand.

Thanks for the explanation SC!

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

09/12/2006 10:52:35 AM · #13

Originally posted by scalvert:

If it were still in the data, so that if you turned up the levels you could see it, would it have been legal, even if you can't see it without doing the levels trick?

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

09/12/2006 10:52:17 AM · #14

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I can only presume that in her "ess curve" bird shot, the BG was basically extremely dark to begin with and so her further darkening of it is acceptable...

That background was already black in the original (water, I suppose).

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/12/2006 10:42:50 AM · #15

Effectively, if I understand her notes correctly, what Sandy did is process the RAW file once so the background was totally black (meaning the bird would have been way too dark), then a second time for the quality of the bird itself. Then she layered the second version atop the first version and carefully erased everything but the bird from the top layer, leaving the featureless, black BG with the bird glowing on top of it.

Since there apparently WAS substantial detail/texture to the BG, by a logical extension: if this were "legal" there would be no need to pay any attention whatsoever to our backgrounds when shooting for DPC if all we wanted was a featureless, black BG, since ANYTHING can be turned into pure black with the levels tool. That, in principle, is contrary to the rules as they've been being applied.

If, on the other hand, you hung a black cloth behind a subject and the captured image showed some visible texture/wrinkles in the cloth, it's STILL a black cloth and you can go ahead and darken the snot out of it with impunity. Apparently Sandy replaced a stone wall with a deep black BG in that particular workflow, and this isn't acceptable even under advanced editing. I can only presume that in her "ess curve" bird shot, the BG was basically extremely dark to begin with and so her further darkening of it is acceptable...

It all seems pretty clear to me, based on what's been described, but it would be VERY useful if the originals of DQ'd shots were shown so people can see the before and after and see exactly where the line's being drawn.

R.

justamistere

Nikon D3s

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

09/12/2006 10:30:03 AM · #16

Thanks scalvert for the reply.

So toning down partial backgrounds, in an adjustment layer, with the background selected, to almost non-existance, is okay, as long as they aren't totaly-blocked out?

kenskid

09/12/2006 10:15:40 AM · #17

Ahhh the old "stone wall removal ploy".

09/12/2006 10:10:47 AM · #18

kenskid

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

09/12/2006 10:05:01 AM · #19

This is a perfect thread to post Sandyp's original. We can all see the background and learn what will get you a DQ.

If you look at my Lizardus texturus you will see right below the mouth they have a green leaf that I wish I could have cloned out or lowered tones or selective color to get rid of it. I tried, but in the end the leaf is there. Some can see it and some can not.

I'd like to see an unedited flamigo. Sandy?

Message edited by author 2006-09-12 10:05:50.

justamistere

Nikon D3s

09/12/2006 09:40:00 AM · #20

Just for Future reference.
Please verify this for me. I was about to use the technique used by sCalvert and SandyP, as someone had once mentioned it to me before.

In "The Journeyman" (muur88), he seemed to have used curves to tone down the trees to black. Is that okay or should he have toned them down until they were barely visible?

In "Whispers of Gold" (SandyP), the error wasn't in exposing the .raw image twice, but in erasing/masking the background, instead of using one of the many other blending methods?

So toning down backgrounds to almost non-existance, is okay, as long as they aren't totaly-blocked out.

BTW, I accept the rule of the council judges, and understand that any human perfection is only the process of clarification and refinement for the future. We all live in and for the future, the past has already ended.

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

09/12/2006 09:35:00 AM · #21

I have been here a member for 2 1/2 years and honestly can say I am more confused about the rules now than when I first started.

This is another reason I feel the top 5 photo's in a challenge should be required to place the original in the description area.

Example:
Why is it you can remove freckles (that is a major element) on the face of a model with tools and cant remove the background of another picture? Not talking about erase, I know that you can't do.

Message edited by author 2006-09-12 09:36:43.

KarenNfld

09/12/2006 09:25:24 AM · #22

Originally posted by alfresco:

I guess I'm confused when this blue ribbon winner passed muster:

when the final effect is the same.

I am, once again, confused.

I could say the same thing about a couple of ribbon winners but they were brought up months ago in a similar thread and I KNOW if I bring them up again I will get bashed.

samtrundle

Canon EOS-50D