| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/28/2010 01:32:32 PM · #26 |
Would you guys please stop... I already sent the hat to  Yo_Spiff with no return stamps in it LOL |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 01:32:36 PM · #27 |
I'm glad that Steve posted the original and the editing steps, for some of us this information is very useful to understand how to improve a photo and I'm very thankful to him.
I see nothing wrong in the result, he applied virtual photographer (the orange tones) on the entire photo, some people see fire I see the last sunrays of the day, with blue tones this could have been the coldness of winter.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2010 01:33:49 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by bvy:
To Ben's point, sometimes it's best not to know. |
So the question becomes is this a competition site, or a learning site. If we are here to learn, it is best if the better images are explained so we have the chance to learn from the success of others. If we are here to win virtual ribbons, then we ought to keep our cards close to our chest.
Good post processing is a bit like magic, once the steps to obtain the illusion are explained the effect does not seem so special. I would rather learn the steps even if it makes the illusion less special. |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 01:36:38 PM · #29 |
at which point does a legal/normal use of a tool (like contrast/brightness for example) become suspect? if you use the contrast control at 10% you may get a pleasing and perfectly accepted result. if you kick it up to 100% you get an unrecognizable mess, which contains new features and newly defined lines and an image that doesn't look anything like the original. but where do you draw the line?
i think you did an amazing job steve, btw. |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 01:45:03 PM · #30 |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 01:49:30 PM · #31 |
This all brings up a related question that I was thinking about while my entry was awaiting validation. When an entry is being discussed for validation during the challenge, do the SC members involved know whose entry it is? Even if kept anonymous, I would think some details of editing could give clues about whose entry it could be. (For instance, my using PaintShop Pro could limit the possible members to a relative handful)
|
|
|
|
11/28/2010 01:51:32 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by bvy:
To Ben's point, sometimes it's best not to know. |
So the question becomes is this a competition site, or a learning site. If we are here to learn, it is best if the better images are explained so we have the chance to learn from the success of others. If we are here to win virtual ribbons, then we ought to keep our cards close to our chest. |
I wouldn't go so far as to call it cards...I just like to experience the image as presented; I understand the whole learning and tutorial concept, and it is beneficial. |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 01:53:14 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
This all brings up a related question that I was thinking about while my entry was awaiting validation. When an entry is being discussed for validation during the challenge, do the SC members involved know whose entry it is? Even if kept anonymous, I would think some details of editing could give clues about whose entry it could be. (For instance, my using PaintShop Pro could limit the possible members to a relative handful) |
I'm sure they know, or can know rather easily. |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 02:00:26 PM · #34 |
I agree that people shouldn't be able to completely change the feel of an image in basic editing. However, if it is something that could be done by simply screwing a filter on to the lens, I think that should be able to be done in post processing. I think it would be silly to require everyone to carry a full set of colored filters when it's so simple to do it in post processing.
There is a debate about whether using a filter would have given the same effect. Would it? Probably not -- however, it would have been very close, and the resulting steps to get it the same would have been completely legal in basic editing.
I also agree with a previous poster -- if a color filter is not legal in pp, then converting to black & white shouldn't be either. I think they should both be legal -- and that we should learn what Spiff already figured out -- it's a powerful tool for us to use. Be happy with it. And if you don't like it -- carry a full set of filters, because it's a very powerful tool. :D
|
|
|
|
11/28/2010 02:22:25 PM · #35 |
I agree with  skief. The smoke/dust/whatever in the original absolutely appears to be fire in the edited version. I'd call that adding a feature, a major one in fact. It provides the majority of the photo's impact. Without the 'fire’ the photo is mundane and probably wouldn't have won any ribbon, let alone the blue.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2010 02:27:59 PM · #36 |
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. |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 04:08:23 PM · #37 |
I love the picture and really don't see how it is any different to this one
Also taken under Basic - also with an Orange filter added to bring out the maximum effect, also published with the before and after images, and also a Blue Ribbon winner . . |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 04:26:14 PM · #38 |
I just read this thread... and looked at Steve's picture again.
I must say that I wasn't at any time led into believing that there was fire on this photo. Sure you've seen battle scenes, full of smoke produced by cannons, guns or smoke bombs, and I think the processing was obvious in its intent(the red tone applies to the entire picture) and imho didn't create a new "feature" on this photo. I can certainly point out some other photos where that was the case, but that's not the discussion here, I guess. |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 04:27:09 PM · #39 |
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
Message edited by author 2010-11-28 16:27:53. |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 05:03:57 PM · #40 |
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. |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 05:05:04 PM · #41 |
Yes the color made the smoke resemble fire, a bit. However it really did not change the structure of the image, nor add new elements.
Yes it is near the edge of the rules, but what is wrong with that? If somebody can find a way to do more, within the rules, yay for them.
I'd have voted legal, if I were on the SC. As is, congrats on a well deserved 1st place; and thank you for sharing your technique.
I would hope that we do not get to the place where no one will share technique, for fear of being challenged on the method.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2010 05:22:43 PM · #42 |
If I may add my $.02.....
Albeit being relatively new to these forums (and thus could completely be wrong), I thought these were photography challenges, not post-editing challenges (at least the minimal/basic editing entries)..
You could screw on a filter in front of a lens to get the same effect, but you could also "shield" the center of the photo under an enlarger to over-expose its edges and thus create a vignette, which the rules clearly indicate isn't allowed.
So just because you can do it, it doesn't mean you should. |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 05:26:06 PM · #43 |
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 |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 05:31:35 PM · #44 |
| He didn't create a new layer and he didn't spot edit. He ran an application universally on the image. It's legal. |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 05:37:04 PM · #45 |
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. |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 05:44:38 PM · #46 |
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 05:47:38 PM · #47 |
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 05:58:32 PM · #48 |
| 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 05:59:52 PM · #49 |
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 06:01:18 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...
... |
OUCH... MY EYESSSSSSSSUHH! |
|
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 09:35:45 PM EDT.
